Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, your Lordships will know that, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Pension Schemes Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments, debated in the last session, concern trustees’ duties and protections, the design of the savers’ interest test, the risk of regulatory herding and the proportionality of the penalty regime.
I start with the operation of the savers’ interest test and exemptions for many future asset allocation requirements. Amendment 140, from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, would remove the provision that an exemption, once granted under the savers’ interest test, applies only for a period specified by the authority. In practice, this would allow an exemption to become open-ended. Amendment 141 would prevent schemes from being required to change their asset allocation while an application or appeal under the savers’ interest test is pending and it would secure the ability to apply for an exemption for up to three consecutive years.
We need fair and transparent procedures when exemptions are granted or withdrawn. But the Government’s intention is that exemptions should be capable of adapting to changing circumstances rather than becoming de facto permanent exclusions. Market conditions, whether in terms of fees or the availability of suitable opportunities, can and do change. A permanent exemption, as Amendment 140 would allow, could end up entrenching a competitive advantage for particular providers long after the original justification had fallen away.
On Amendment 141, many of the procedural safeguards that the noble Baroness seeks are already enabled by the Bill. New Section 28C allows regulations to set time limits for decisions on savers’ interest applications, to specify the period an approval lasts, to set rules around withdrawals and to require advance notice to be given. Those are the right vehicles for detailed processes to be determined—by regulators and in consultation with industry. The powers do not cap the number of times that an exemption can be renewed, so I assure the noble Baroness that multiyear relief will already be possible where justified.
Turning to trustees’ duties, Amendments 146 and 147, from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, address how these new powers sit alongside fiduciary responsibilities. Amendment 146 would say expressly that nothing in this chapter overrides or diminishes trustees’ duty to act in the best financial interests of members. I entirely agree about the importance of that duty. But, as I have said, the Government would not be proposing these powers if there were not strong evidence that savers’ interests lie in greater investment diversification than we see today in the market.
In the last session, the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, challenged me on the strength of the saver benefits, referring to analysis by the Government Actuary’s Department, which, in illustrative modelling for DWP, found a 2% uplift in a typical saver’s pension pot from a hypothetical private markets allocation. That analysis is just one of various reports that show the benefits of diversification and the potential for higher risk-adjusted returns from a more diversified portfolio. Some of that evidence is referenced in the DWP paper to which the noble Lord referred. As another example, a British Business Bank report identified a potential uplift of 7% to 12% from a 5% allocation to venture capital.
There is a fair degree of consensus around this in the pensions industry. Indeed, the Mansion House Accord explicitly cites the potential for higher risk-adjusted returns as its core justification. The fact is that we are an international outlier. Meanwhile, Australian and Canadian pension funds are investing in the UK, owning airports, roads and telecom companies, making the most of the opportunities available to invest in this country while seeking good returns for their savers.
When it comes to the reserve asset allocation power, as noble Lords know, before it can be exercised, the Government must publish a report on the likely impact on savers. Where asset allocation requirements are in place, the savers’ interest test allows a scheme to seek an exemption if it can show that compliance would cause material financial detriment to members. Crucially, nothing in the Bill disapplies trustees’ existing duties of loyalty, prudence and acting in members’ best interests. These continue to apply.
Our concern with Amendment 146 is that it could cast doubt on the binding nature of any requirements introduced under these powers by implying that trustees can simply disregard them wherever they assert that they are acting in members’ interests. The right place to consider scheme-specific departures is the savers’ interest test, which is overseen by the regulator.
We do not agree with Amendment 147 for similar reasons. It seeks to create a broad statutory safe harbour from penalties or consequences for trustees who fail to meet asset allocation requirements where they believe that they are acting in members’ best interests. The Bill already recognises that there will be circumstances where exemptions are justified and provides a structured route to secure them. A blanket safe harbour would risk undermining that framework.
Amendment 148, which is also from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, would place a new statutory duty on trustees to have regard to systemic risks, including economic resilience and climate change. I very much agree with the noble Baroness that such risks can materially affect long-term pension outcomes, and trustees should take them seriously. Our concern is that a new open-ended duty, using terms such as “systemic risk” and “economic resilience” without detailed definition, risks increasing legal uncertainty and costs for trustees without clear benefit. Our preferred approach is to work with the sector on strength and guidance for trust-based private pensions, clarifying how trustees can take account of systemic and sustainability risks within their existing duties.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, pressed me last Monday on the timings of this work. I can confirm that the work is already under way and that an initial round table, with representatives from across the pensions sector and led by the Pensions Minister, took place yesterday. The Pensions Minister has confirmed that he will be convening a technical working group to take this work forward and that there will be a full consultation on the draft guidance later in the spring.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, also asked whether that guidance would clarify the application of the reserve power. The guidance is not conceived as part of our implementation of these reserve powers, which, as I take every opportunity to remind the Committee, may well never be exercised. Rather, its purpose is to address inconsistent interpretations of investment duties across the trusteeship landscape and support everyday investment decision-making. As noble Lords may well be aware, there has been an active area of discussion within legal and financial circles for many years. The recent work of the Financial Markets Law Committee has played an important role in shaping the debate on the extent to which factors such as climate change, quality of life in retirement and sustainability should be considered in investment decisions. Building on that, our forthcoming statutory guidance is intended to provide clear and practical support to trustees on how these factors should be taken into account, ensuring confidence and consistency.
Amendment 142 from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, deals with a concern about what happens if qualifying assets were to perform poorly, an issue also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, last week. This amendment would require the regulator to indemnify schemes against costs or liabilities if members’ returns are worse than they might have been without any mandated allocation. I recognise the question, but I say again that the Government would not be proposing these powers if we did not think change from the status quo was in savers’ interests. These powers would only ever be used following a statutory impact report and with the savers’ interest test in place.
As I have said previously, trustees continue to be responsible for investing in their savers’ interests. That means savers would continue in all circumstances to be protected by the core fiduciary duties of trustees to act with loyalty, honesty and good faith to savers, and trustees would continue to be subject to a duty to invest in savers’ best interests, in line with the law. We expect that duty would certainly apply to the selection of individual investments in a portfolio; to the balance of different asset classes in a portfolio, including the balance between private asset classes; and to any decision to apply for an exemption under the savers’ interest test. If a provider felt the asset allocation requirement was inappropriate for their circumstances, we would expect their existing duties to guide them to submit an application for exemption to protect their savers’ interests.
There are also, I must say, some significant drawbacks with this amendment, which is not dissimilar to Amendment 167—we are going to cover that in the next grouping, so I apologise if I end up being a little bit repetitive then. An indemnity of this kind would in practice mean that taxpayers and levy-paying firms would underwrite individual schemes’ investment decisions. That would create serious moral hazard and encourage excessive risk-taking, on the basis that any losses could be socialised while any gains would accrue to the scheme. It would also be very hard to operate in practice. Identifying the portion of any loss attributable specifically to the qualifying assets, as distinct from the wider portfolio or market factors, would be highly contentious.
Amendment 150 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State avoids mandating or promoting investment in ways that create herding and to emphasise diversification in guidance. I entirely agree that we must avoid perverse herding effects. At present, DC schemes’ exposure to private markets is relatively low. As that changes, the breadth of potential qualifying assets, infrastructure, property, private equity, venture capital, private credit and others, together with the requirement for a prior report to Parliament, should help to mitigate herding. But while we will need to be alert to this, we do not believe an additional statutory duty is needed. Indeed, schemes will continue to be subject to existing rules and regulations in this area, such as the Occupational Pension Schemes (Investment) Regulations 2005, which require the assets of trust-based schemes to be
“properly diversified in such a way as to avoid excessive reliance on any particular asset”.
Amendment 149, also from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, would ensure that listed investment companies and trusts can be treated as qualifying assets on the same footing as other collective vehicles. We have had many an opportunity earlier in Committee to discuss in detail the matters relating to investment companies, so I will not rehearse arguments made previously. But, as I said last week, the design of this reserve power is deliberately aligned with the commitments made by industry under the Mansion House Accord. I have circulated to noble Lords links to the relevant Q&A materials, which I mentioned last Monday in Committee, and which can be found on the websites of Pensions UK, the ABI and the City of London.
The noble Baroness has asked periodically who is responsible for the approach taken to funds. I cannot speak to individual decision processes; what I can do is to echo what I said last week. The signatories self-evidently supported the scope that was eventually drawn, but so did the Government—we have been quite clear about that. Based on my knowledge of the conversations in which the Government were involved, I can also say that government support for this position was not in any way the result of pressure on the Government from signatories or the representative bodies, so the idea that this is some sort of anti-competitive move by the pensions industry is completely misconceived. Instead, it simply follows the logic—
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
I do not think I was suggesting that it was an anti-competitive move by the pensions industry, but there are segments in it that are advantaged by it. The other concern is that the meetings that took place prior to the signing of the Mansion House agreement were very particular to certain types of organisation; I have yet to know of any that really had interests in listed investment companies or of any of them that were invited. Perhaps the Minister does not know because this is not her field, but I have to say, I am very concerned that this has been a secretive consultation, not a public consultation, among a selection rather than among the many.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am not going to say any more than I have now. The noble Baroness has made a series of complaints about cartels, secrecy and lack of integrity—all kinds of things—none of which are merited. I simply felt that I needed to put something on the record to counter that, and I do not have anything to add. We have made it clear that these were iterative discussions with the industry, looking at what was going to happen specifically in relation to the accord, and I have made the Government’s view on that clear.
On enforcement, Amendment 145, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, has added her name, probes whether the maximum penalty of £100,000 per employer in new Section 28I is proportionate. We have worked closely with the regulators and benchmarked against comparable penalty regimes. The intention is to set a maximum that is meaningful as a deterrent to wilful or repeated non-compliance but is not routinely applied. I assure the noble Baroness that it is a cap, not a fixed sum, so the regulators will take account of the facts in each case; in practice, the potential loss of qualifying scheme status for auto-enrolment is likely to be a far more significant consequence than any fine.
We are keen to work with schemes, trustees and providers to ensure that any future use of the reserve asset allocation powers, were that to come to pass, is carefully targeted, evidence-based and consistent with trustees’ duties. We believe that the Bill provides the right framework, including the savers’ interest test, the requirement for a prior report and a proportionate enforcement regime. In the light of all that, I hope that noble Lords can withdraw or not press their amendments.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for summing up, albeit that there has been a delay of some two working days. I thank everyone who has spoken. I offer a particular thank you to the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Bowles, for lending their support to Amendments 140 and 141.
I note that, in summing up, the Minister said—it was in relation to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, I think—that statutory guidance will be issued. I make a plea: could that be made available before Report, or certainly before the Bill receives Royal Assent, to enable trustees to have sufficient time to prepare in this regard? I do not know whether we have a date for that.
In relation to Amendments 140 and 141, I could not have put it better than my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott did in summing up when she said:
“They make the framework that the Bill creates more robust, transparent and defensible”.—[Official Report, 26/1/26; col. GC 287.]
Therefore, I am grateful for this opportunity to debate these two amendments, as well as this group of amendments per se, but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Kramer
“Pension value protection for default arrangements investing in qualifying assets(1) This section applies to a Master Trust scheme or a group personal pension scheme where—(a) an individual’s rights have been accrued wholly or partly through automatic enrolment, and(b) all or part of those rights have been invested in a default arrangement which includes qualifying assets in accordance with any agreement or policy statement made by the Government concerning minimum or expected allocations to such assets.(2) Upon the individual becoming entitled to receive retirement benefits under the scheme, the trustees or managers must obtain an actuarial assessment of—(a) the net investment return attributable to the qualifying assets held within the default arrangement over the period during which the individual’s rights were so invested, and(b) the net investment return that would have been achieved over the same period had those assets instead been invested in a prescribed benchmark fund.(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b), “prescribed benchmark fund” means a diversified, low-cost equity index fund of a description specified in regulations.(4) Where the actuarial assessment shows that the return attributable to the qualifying assets is lower than the return of the prescribed benchmark fund, the Secretary of State must, in accordance with regulations, secure that a payment is made by the Department for Work and Pensions to the individual equal to the difference, within a timeframe determined by regulations.(5) Regulations under this section may make provision about—(a) the form and content of actuarial assessments,(b) the appointment and qualifications of actuaries,(c) the methodology for attributing returns to qualifying assets,(d) the manner and timing of any payment under subsection (4),(e) cases in which no payment is required, including where differences are de minimis, and(f) the recovery of costs from prescribed pension schemes or prescribed persons.(6) The Secretary of State must publish guidance about the operation of this section, including guidance on the protection of members who remain invested in default arrangements throughout their working lives.(7) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to make provision for paying the difference (if any) between returns on investments into qualifying assets held within default arrangements and returns on the same investment, had they been invested in a “prescribed benchmark fund”, meaning a diversified, low-cost equity index fund.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sharkey sends his apologies; he is at a funeral and will read Hansard with great attention. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for supporting me on Amendment 167. I think it is the first time in 15 years that I have degrouped an amendment to stand by itself, but I can see no other way to ensure a clear answer from the Government: will they put their money where their mouth is?
The Committee has discussed qualified assets and, while I do not intend to repeat the discussion, I hope that everyone understands how high risk a portfolio of such assets is. The Financial Services Regulation Committee, in January, titled its look at the private equity markets as Private Markets: Unknown Unknowns. Some 75% of firms invested in by venture capital fail. Complex infrastructure is both high risk and illiquid; we can think HS2, the Elizabeth Line—four years delayed and £4 billion over budget—and Hinkley Point, which seems to run out of money time after time. If someone with a substantial pension wants to invest in such assets, that is fine with me, but the Mansion House Compact —or accord, I do not care which terminology is used—covers only auto-enrolment default fund pension schemes. These are vehicles for those with the narrowest shoulders, with low incomes, small pensions and little financial knowledge. The downside risk for them means poverty.
The Government have assured us, and those pension savers with the narrowest shoulders, that under the Mansion House Compact, and by putting 10% of their pensions into qualified assets, they will be winners—to quote the Minister on the first day in Committee:
“with an average earner potentially gaining up to £29,000 more by retirement”.—[Official Report, 12/1/26; col. GC 205.]
No warning of the downside was mentioned and clearly, to the Minister, the downside does not seriously exist. I challenge that. I am always very wary of promises of low-risk, high-return investments.
The Government have argued that the Mansion House Compact, combined with the provisions in this Bill, brings great benefits because risk can in effect be eliminated by the structures that have been introduced and the use of large providers. I want to challenge some of those shibboleths. Large providers have explained to me that they can enhance pensions and use qualified assets safely through lifestyle investing, where more is invested into high-risk assets early in the life of the pension, switching later to low-risk investments. If I lose £100 in the first year that I save in a pension, the loss is compounded through the life of the pension and I will have thousands less to get me through retirement. If I lose £100 the day before my pension matures, I lose £100. Early losses are never made up by later gains because they in no way enhance the performance of other assets in the portfolio. If you lose on A, there is no sudden guarantee that you will gain on B. Lifestyle investment is a marketing tool to sell schemes to the financially anxious.
The Government and the Minister argue that the risks in qualified assets can be mitigated away through diversification. For a fund fully invested in good-quality assets, such as the FTSE 100 or the S&P 500, I see the argument for diversification to manage risk, but diversification loses its effectiveness in high-risk portfolios, as everyone should have learned from the collateralised debt obligation scandal that triggered the financial crisis in 2008. Let me illustrate with an extreme example. I go to the casino, maybe several casinos. I play the slot machine, roulette and blackjack. I am beautifully diversified. But we all know that I will still lose my money.
The Government’s case that pensioners with the narrowest shoulders should be 10% invested in qualified assets really depends on assumptions that it makes about asset allocation. The argument is that the pension companies involved would employ the best experts to pick winners among those qualified assets. Some experts are better than others, though I note that they all will find statistics and present them to show that they have the Midas touch.
I note the analysis of the Government Actuary’s Department, which shows that over time and on average—that is a key word—virtually every model portfolio tested delivers similar results. But there is a catch, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, pointed out last week—the GAD’s conclusion underscored its uncertainty. It said that
“there is considerable uncertainty, particularly with the assumptions for projected future investment returns”.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, also quoted from the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, which made the point even more forcefully. I could not work out what the mean looked like when I looked at that work done by the government department. Obviously, the mean really matters because an average can be made up of a few big winners and a lot of small losers. It is the losers in the high stakes game of qualified assets that worry me.
I am not attempting to stop the Mansion House Compact and the Government’s plan to put 10% of the assets of auto-enrolment default funds into qualified assets even though they are unlisted, opaque, high-risk and illiquid. My amendment would simply require the Government to provide a safety net for those who are in no position to live with the downside in these investments.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, last week said that
“the inevitable corollary of mandation”,
which is where he was focused,
“is responsibility for the outcome”.—[Official Report, 26/1/26; col. GC 284.]
But I regard the Mansion House Compact as very much a government-driven agreement designed by the industry to head off even more coercive action and so I think that the same principle applies: “responsibility for the outcome”.
My amendment is simple:
“Upon the individual becoming entitled to receive retirement benefits under the scheme, the trustees or managers must obtain an actuarial assessment of—
(a) the net investment return attributable to the qualifying assets held within the default arrangement over the period during which the individual’s rights were so invested, and
(b) the net investment return that would have been achieved over the same period had those assets instead been invested in a prescribed benchmark fund”.
In the amendment, benchmark fund
“means a diversified, low-cost equity index fund of a description specified in regulations”.
If the benchmark fund would have performed better, the Government make up the difference to the pensioner. The calculation, despite what the Minister said, is very simple, requires no new data and can be crafted straightforwardly. Pension schemes would just code it into their normal reporting.
If the Minister and the Government are right, and investment in qualified assets, as structured under the Mansion House Compact and in this Bill, benefits and does not harm pensioners in auto-enrolment default schemes—those people I described at the beginning with the narrowest shoulders and least able to take risk—it costs the Government absolutely nothing to sign up to this protection provision. If the Government believe their own words, accepting my amendment means taking no risk at all for the Government or taxpayer. My amendment only costs the Government money if they are wrong in the promises that they are making. The amendment would certainly give peace of mind to the poorest pensioners and strengthen their confidence to save and to invest.
We all want auto-enrolment to better serve low earners, but that requires shaping policy around the capacity of low earners to take risk. I ask the Government to put their money where their mouth is and provide the pension value protection described in my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for not being able to be here last week for Amendment 142. I am grateful that the Minister responded to it regardless of that. I have added my name to Amendment 167. I will try to be very brief because the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has explained it with her usual clarity, and the amendment covers some of the same ground that we debated in the last group—although it attacks the problem from the other direction.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I possibly touched on this issue in the wrong group, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has indicated, I raised, in essence, the same points in the previous debate.
I am in favour of mandation, but what worries me is that the Government do not seem to understand—and have never acknowledged—the consequences, which have been set out so clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. There are consequences if the Government tell people how to organise their retirement income and if, having told them how to proceed to achieve a good income, it subsequently turns out that the Government are wrong. As I said last week, they will not necessarily be legal consequences, but political consequences and moral consequences.
I draw attention to the Financial Assistance Scheme, which we are going to be debating later this week. It was established because the Government had to acknowledge their failure to introduce the appropriate law and protect people, and they lost income. That is an exact precedent for where we are now. That Government had a responsibility to protect those people and failed to do so. After a vigorous campaign by those who had been affected, and the threat of losing a case at the European court, which was possibly more influential on the Government, they had to act. It is not wild speculation that the Government will end up having to meet these moral and political consequences; it has already happened. The Government have to face up to what they are proposing here.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support this amendment in principle. I share the concerns just expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, about the risk of mandating a substantial proportion of any pension fund to be invested in what is, in effect, the highest-risk end of the equity spectrum, which is meant in other circumstances—if you ask the Pensions Regulator and so on—to be the risky bit of investment.
The Government may need to think again about the consequences of potentially being so narrow—of course, in the Bill, we do not even have the exact definition of what the assets are going to be in terms of these unlisted opportunities—because the opportunity set for risky investments that can actually benefit the economy is a lot wider than seems to be indicated in the Bill. Surely the more diversified the portfolios, the better risk-adjusted returns members can expect. I hope that the Government will give the Committee a more precise understanding of their expectations for the types of assets and for the consequences of being automatically enrolled in a scheme that invests in private equity assets or other unlisted assets that end up failing completely—as has happened so frequently with that type of investment in the past.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I will not repeat the long list of government missteps on a global, international stage from those politicians who have interfered with people’s retirements. Safe to say, it represents moral hazard.
There is a mismatch between the long-term investment needs of people who are saving for retirement half a generation ahead—in particular, the youngest members of our workforce—and the short-term political wants of those who might direct. Politics is transient. MPs come and go, but the hangover from bad decisions lasts a long time. The 1997 changes to dividend taxes have cast a long shadow that has deprived millions of a secure retirement. We should have learned that lesson but, no, we have not. Mandation risks repeating that mistake all over again and benighting a new generation of youngsters who are 30 or 40 years away from retirement. There is already generational unfairness in the system. Mandation will perpetuate it again. It should have no place in the Bill, yet here we are discussing it.
I align myself fully with the proposers of these amendments and hope that, even at this late stage, between Committee and Report, the Government will look at this matter once more. Mandation should not be part of the Bill because of that simple moral hazard. MPs and the Treasury love to tell people what to do, but they will not be around to pick up the pieces when, or if, it all goes wrong.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 167, which was tabled and spoken to eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and supported by many noble Lords. This amendment touches on a set of concerns that we raised at Second Reading and to which we will return in considerably more detail in our debate on the next group.
For the sake of brevity, at this stage, I will confine myself to the central point of principle. The issue here is not simply asset allocation but where risk is placed and who should take it when investment decisions are shaped by government direction, rather than trusty judgment. The mandation power introduced by the Bill is targeted narrowly at automatic enrolment default funds—the schemes that are relied on by those who are least likely to have made an active choice and are least able to respond if outcomes are adversely affected. That targeting matters. Mandation does not apply evenly across the pensions landscape. It does not touch defined benefit schemes, self-selected funds, SIPPs or bespoke arrangements but falls with notable precision on default savers—those who depend most heavily on the neutrality and integrity of the system to act on their behalf.
Amendment 167 raises a legitimate question about protection and accountability in that context. If default funds are required to follow mandated investment decisions and if those decisions underperform a simple, low-cost benchmark, should the consequences fall entirely on members who neither chose the strategy nor, in practice, have the capacity to respond to it? Of course, it may be said that members are free to move to another fund, but that response lacks behavioural realism. Automatic enrolment defaults exist precisely because many savers do not actively choose, do not regularly review and do not feel equipped to intervene in complex investment decisions. How can we put them in that position?
For a significant proportion of members, remaining in the default is not an expression of preference but a reflection of constraint, limited time, limited confidence and limited financial literacy. Behavioural realism tells us that these savers will not simply move in response to policy changes, however well signposted. To place the full downside risk of mandated investment decisions on that group is therefore not neutral; it is a deliberate allocation of risk to those least able to manage it. The noble Baroness’s amendment is therefore not an attempt to eliminate risk but to highlight the asymmetry that mandation introduces and the absence of any corresponding safeguard for those most exposed to its effects.
These issues around mandation, choice, fiduciary duty and the position of default savers run through the architecture of the Bill. We will return to them in much greater depth in the following group. For now, I simply underline that the concerns raised by Amendment 167 and all those who have spoken are not isolated. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope that the Government will take note of the concern laid out to them today and do the right thing.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for explaining her amendment, which would in essence introduce a requirement for the Government to establish a framework for compensating savers in the event that they lose out financially because they were invested in assets that they would not have been were it not for the use of these powers. I am sorry to say that because we have just discussed a similar amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, in the previous group, some of my arguments may sound a little familiar, but I hope that the noble Baroness will bear with me.
First, as I have said, the Government would not be proposing these powers if there was not strong evidence that savers’ interests lie in greater investment diversification than we see in today’s market. That is the Government’s view. I mentioned in the last group that there is a range of evidence out there which goes to this point. I cited one example of it; there are others cited in the DWP paper to which the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, referred. I pointed out that we are an international outlier in this matter, so that is the Government's view.
The reason we are doing this, once again, is that we believe that it is in the interests of savers to have a small, risk-adjusted diversification within the context of a portfolio; we believe that it is the best thing for savers. DC pension providers themselves have recognised that a small allocation to private markets can offer better risk-adjusted returns as part of a diversified portfolio. The noble Baroness has offered one view as to why people are not doing this. In our view, many providers have so far not done it not because it is necessarily in savers’ best interests not to do it but because of competitive pressure to keep fees low or because of a lack of scale, among other reasons.
Secondly, if the Government ever came to consider exercising these powers, they would first have to publish a report considering the impact of the proposed asset allocation requirements on savers. Crucially, that is an opportunity to confirm that bringing forward the requirements is in savers’ interests, based on the circumstances at that time. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that there is also a report required after the powers are used and within five years. Thirdly, if the Government ever did implement the requirements, the legislation provides for a formal process under which providers could apply for an exemption based on evidence that meeting the requirements would cause savers “material financial detriment”.
Crucially, savers will continue in all circumstances to be protected by the core fiduciary duties of trustees. Specifically, trustees would continue to be subject to a duty to invest in savers’ best interests, in line with the law. This comes down to the fact that the Government are not mandating trustees to invest in any particular assets. Were these powers ever to come about, the trustee duty would apply, as I have said, to the selection of individual investments in a portfolio, to the balance of different asset classes in a portfolio, including the balance between private asset classes, and to any decision to apply for an exemption under the savers’ interest test. If a provider felt that the asset allocation requirement was not appropriate for their particular circumstances, we would expect the existing duties to guide them to submit an application under the savers’ interest tests.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
If this is such a good idea, why not just mandate it for all pension funds?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The Bill as a whole is trying to pursue scale and is trying to mirror what the Mansion House Accord did. I have been through that argument many times. We are seeking solely a reserve power to act as a backstop to an industry-led decision. The industry itself has decided to go in this direction. It is a simply a reserve power, and the reason why we are using it is that we know that there remains a risk that people will not all follow through on it because of the excessive focus on cost and the competitive advantage that may come from backsliding on that. I fully accept that the noble Baroness does not agree, but those are the Government’s arguments. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, it has been such an excellent debate that I will be extremely brief. I am troubled by two things. One is that the Minister does not seem to realise that this is not voluntary action by the pension industry. It is because it sees it as the only way to avoid actual mandation, not because people have sat down and said, “All these years we have been getting it wrong; now we have had a conversation with the Government and we’re going to get it right”. That is not what is going on here.
Secondly, I am troubled that the Minister does not understand the consequences of the level of risk that is embedded in these qualified assets. She is perfectly satisfied that, if they go wrong, the damage falls on the people with the narrowest shoulders. To me, that is seriously incomprehensible because, for those people, the consequence is frequently going to be poverty.
I ask her to sit back and think about this. The Government are right to encourage people to save for pensions, but they also need to understand that, when people have narrow shoulders, low incomes and limited financial knowledge, they are not in a position to take the kind of risks that she is, in essence, saying that they should be taking and, if they take them, they are guaranteed winners. If she believes that they are guaranteed winners, then simply step in and provide the protection that I am talking about, which would cost the taxpayer nothing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Noakes
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow regulations to encourage new entrants to enter the pension scheme market.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 168, I shall speak also to Amendments 169 to 171 in my name; I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for adding her name to three of those four amendments.
Last week, I promised the Minister that we would return to the issues of new entrants, competition and innovation. I make no apology for returning to these themes, because they are fundamental to a healthy pension provision market. The Government have decided that they wish to accelerate the consolidation of pension providers into a smaller number of larger players because they believe that this will enhance the returns that pension savers will get. I think that that is arguable, but I am not going to relitigate that case today; some of us tried to make it last week, and I know that we will return to it on Report.
Instead, I want to focus on how that market can be future-proofed so that it will deliver for savers in the long term. The Government should be interested in this because I am fairly sure that they will not want to contemplate a further significant market intervention, such as the one in this Bill, a few years down the line when they find that the performance of the oligopolists they have created starts to disappoint.
I know that the value-for-money regime in the Bill might well deal with the worst performers, but getting rid of poor performers will not be good enough to make the pension provision market develop in a positive direction. For several reasons, the pension provision market is one where customer choice is not a force for significant change, so we have to look elsewhere. Healthy markets are those in which innovation can challenge existing market norms, often by identifying underserved or badly served customers and by using technology to transform cost bases. Competition within established markets is rarely enough to achieve disruption, which is why the focus has to be on new entrants. This is the story of practically every business sector. It certainly encompasses all aspects of financial services, and pension provision is no exception; for example, cloud-native pension platforms are potential current disruptors in the DC pensions space.
We have already had some conversations about new entrants in the context of the new entrant pathway and the transitional pathway. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and I have tried to argue that new entrants are going to struggle to survive because of the rules of the two pathways, because of the timescales involved in getting from innovation to significant size, and because of the interaction between the financing of growth and the requirements of the scale provisions. I still live in hope that we will be able to persuade the Minister about that.
Three amendments in this group are aimed at the provisions in Clause 42, which concern default arrangements. The aim of my amendments is to ensure both that new entrants are encouraged and that competition and innovation can thrive. Clause 42 is, astonishingly, headed “Regulations restricting creation of new non-scale default arrangements”. Unsurprisingly, my Amendment 168 takes aim at this notion of restricting new non-scale default arrangements. It would replace the purpose of the regulation-making power, which is to restrict the ability of a pension scheme provider to begin operating a non-scale default arrangement, with the more neutral “in connection with”. I could have gone further—indeed, I probably should have gone further—and replaced “restricting” with “encouraging”, or at least something more positive.
My central proposition is that new pension providers should be welcomed with open arms and not be assumed to be something to be squashed. It may well be that not all new entrants are successful—the Bill has provisions that will allow them to be consolidated if they are not—but starting with the presumption that they are bad news and need to be controlled and restricted is completely wrong. Amendment 169 would add some words to Clause 42(2)(f) so that the regulations on new non-scale default arrangements can confer a function of encouraging competition on regulators. The wording is almost certainly not quite right but, for the purposes of Committee, I am trying to ensure that the regulators can be given a role in creating and developing competition in the markets in which pension providers operate.
It gets a bit complicated here. As I read it, the Pensions Regulator has no function, power or objective in relation to pension provision markets, including competition. This is in stark contrast to the FCA, which has a strategic objective to ensure that the markets it regulates function well. It also has an operational competition objective and a secondary objective to promote competitiveness and growth. It is quite possible that the FCA’s statutory objectives will, in effect, ensure that they act in a pro-competition way when exercising powers granted under the regulations in Clause 42. I hope the Minister can tell the Committee how the Government see Clause 42 of this Bill interacting with the FCA’s existing statutory framework.
It is, however, clear that TPR operates in a wholly different statutory framework, which is undesirable, as later amendments will explore, and could lead to different outcomes under this Bill in the different pension provision markets that they regulate. I ask the Minister how the Government can justify one regulator having quite clear competition and pro-market powers while the other regulator does not. Will this produce different outcomes in the exercise of the powers?
Amendment 170 would add a new subsection (2A) to Clause 42 so that the regulators
“must have regard to the desirability of encouraging innovation”
in pension provision. While the FCA’s legislation does not specifically reference innovation, as I have explained, it has several references to competition and competitiveness, which are generally interpreted to include innovation as a key driver. TPR’s legislation has nothing about innovation. I believe that, as a minimum, the regulator should have something like a statutory “have regard” duty to innovation to ensure that it keeps that in sharp focus as it carries out its regulatory functions in relation to new providers.
Lastly, Amendment 173 would require the review of non-scale default arrangements, which Clause 43 requires, to consider the extent to which non-scale default arrangements contribute to competition, which I hope is self-explanatory. I hope the Minister can also explain the timetable for the Clause 43 review, since no timing appears in the Bill, which itself is a rather extraordinary way to legislate.
The contrast between the type of regulation that this Bill is trying to create and that in the FCA and Prudential Regulation Authority more widely is stark. For some time, both the PRA and the FCA have had a special focus on fostering start-ups. They have regulatory sandboxes to allow innovative ideas to be tested outside the normal regulatory framework. Just today, they have announced new arrangements to help scale-ups to achieve their potential. This Bill feels positively prehistoric in its approach to squashing new entrants into the market and I hope that the Government will think again. I beg to move.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I would like to add my voice in support of Amendment 168 and the other amendments to which my noble friend Lady Noakes has spoken.
It seems quite counterproductive for legislation to discourage innovation and the introduction of new types of investment based on different strategies in order to widen the choice available to the trustees of our pension funds. Anything that seeks to restrict new entrants is by definition counter competitive and likely to lead ultimately to worse, not better, outcomes.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I just want to touch on some basic principles here. As we go through the Bill in Committee, I go back to look at the whole basis of what the Government are trying to do, which I broadly support.
However, it essentially says here that members should benefit from these reforms and get better outcomes and greater value for their pension and invested funds. Therefore, although in general I agree with the first of these amendments, if one looks further into Amendments 172, 173 and 174—which I want to concentrate on here—they remind us of the interesting power balance we seem to be developing. I am somewhat concerned, as a trustee of a fund, that my accountability has always primarily been to the members, to achieve the outcomes that the Bill suggests should be achieved.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, spoke a few minutes ago about responsibility of government. Of course, the responsibility of trustees has been enormous, and is very important as a protection for members but also as a barrier between the way investments take place and the way regulation takes place. I was investigated myself when I first became a trustee because I was appointed by a company and under Section 72—I think it was, at that time—of the Pensions Act, the regulator checked to see whether I was too closely connected to the company. It is true that I was a good friend of the company directors and so on, but I had to prove that I would act in a dispassionate manner and that I would do the very best for members at all times.
Of course, however, in doing that chore, I have had issues regarding the position of the regulator and the relationship between the regulator and the PPF in determining the nature of investment the trustees have made. The balance of trustees’ investments has always been a critical factor in reporting—as has been necessary—to the regulator and to the PPF. This is all essential stuff. Therefore, in view of the mandation proposals and looking at Amendments 172, 173 and 174, all of which refer to important elements, I have one question. How will this future relationship be in existence for the benefit of the members? Amendment 172 talks about informing members, and one of the criticisms of trustees—sometimes coming from members, or sometimes from the regulator—has been that not enough information has been provided to scheme members for things that have been done on their behalf. Is the process we are now looking at really going to allow for that information to be objective and put to the members appropriately by the people who ought to do it—the trustees?
Value for money for anything that is mandated is a decision to be made, and we had that debate in the last group. I am concerned about that, too.
Finally, on the question of the reduction of members’ choices—trustees inevitably inform their members of the options available to them—a genuine and legitimate choice must be available to members at all times. If that is not the case, it is very difficult for trustees to perform their duties and not fall foul of what will still be a very heavy set of regulations on the choices that they make.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, one of the astonishing things about the Bill is that it not only stops choice but puts under statute a connivance between the regulators and that old boys’ club of large operators that run investment money in London.
The effect of this connivance is to weaken returns, increase costs, damage competition among funds and weaken the UK economy. It does that because—although you would not know from the Bill—the City of London is, by any measure, one of the world’s top three financial centres. That did not happen by itself. Three hundred years of innovation, progress, capital and scale, starting in Lloyd’s Coffee House in the 1700s, and continuing with the Rothschilds and the big bang 40 or 50 years ago, made the United Kingdom and the City of London a financial powerhouse. It created a tax gusher. That happened because people were able to use their intellect and talents to innovate to turn small acorns into large oak trees in so far as financial management is concerned.
All that is at risk. That is why I welcome the amendments from my noble friend Lady Noakes, which would re-establish the principle that you have to allow the creative destruction in a market economy to advance returns and service and add competition, all of which this Government would sweep aside. It is that sort of macroeconomic approach.
Of course, it also fetters people’s ability to make their own decisions in an adult way. I accept that after someone’s house, their pension may be their second largest asset. But that is not the same in every case, and there are people with sophisticated needs and requirements who ought to have that choice. That choice should not be foisted upon them, because it gives you those weaker returns, increased costs and damaged competition.
I am entirely in favour of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes and, once again, I call on the Government to have a fresh look at this, not least because the Prime Minister has identified fintech and all those sorts of innovative sectors—those start-ups in Shoreditch—as one of the large opportunities where this country can show competitive advantage. That would be snuffed out if these provisions in the Bill were implemented through regulation or other methods.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is fair to say that I am not keen on Chapter 4 of the Bill, which appears to allow the state to trample on and prevent the establishment of smaller funds, and, if necessary, requires their assets to be moved, presumably to another fund. “Squashing new entrants” was the telling phrase used by my noble friend Lady Noakes. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to provide some reassurance.
I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes and have added my name to most of them. It is essential to permit the regulations to be pro- competitive rather than over-exclusionary, and for the review required by Clause 43—the timing of which we are yet to hear about—to consider the competitive landscape for pension scheme provision.
It is also important that the regulations made encourage innovation, as Amendment 170 would. The substantial £25 billion minimum provided for in the Government’s reforms seems set to deter such innovation—innovation that is characteristic of smaller, growing operators. We have heard that, at length, on several days, but we have not yet received an adequate answer. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has already raised some good points about other risks that may arise from the proposed arrangements.
My noble friend Lady Noakes rightly suggested that the Pensions Regulator should be made to consider the competitiveness of new entries. I share her praise for the fintech sandbox, although I would say that that was a long time ago—indeed, when I was a Treasury Minister about 10 years ago. I am, however, less sure about the FCA’s overall success. I have therefore added my name to my noble friend Lord Younger’s stand-part notice, which questions the need for Clause 45. The Government’s Explanatory Notes are far from helpful and the implications of this clause are unclear. Why does it extend the FCA’s supervisory jurisdiction to default arrangements under Chapter 4? What, if any, new delegated powers are being given to it?
I have encountered a lot of problems with the FCA over the years. The truth is that I have not found it business or fund-friendly. It presents itself as the champion of the consumer, but adds cost, delay, bureaucracy and uncertainty in a way that often raises prices and returns to the very consumer that it was set up to protect. I am therefore of the view that its role should be minor and constrained. What is the background and rationale for this clause? We need to know more if we are going to support it.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank everyone for their contributions. It might take 300 years to get it right, but we do not have 300 years; we are trying to get it right in the course of a few meetings, as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, pointed out. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, gave us the view from the coalface with regard to the decisions that trustees have to take and about trustees working on behalf of their members. The key concern, which is why I support these amendments, is that the default should be shaped around members’ needs and outcomes, not regulatory convenience or market consolidation by default.
The amendments in this group emphasise the importance of competition, innovation and transparency. They highlight the need for clear member communication before defaults are subject to mandation, for a value-for-money framework to be in place first and, I am afraid, for Ministers to justify why mandation is limited to automatic enrolment defaults. The amendments seek to put some meat on to what this Bill is meant to do. They are, I think, necessary to make sense of the precautions that are needed if this Bill goes forward.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I hope that the Committee will think that it makes sense if I begin with the four amendments in this group tabled in my name. I start with our probing stand-part question on Clause 45. This is a short clause, but an important one. It makes changes to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The purpose of the question is simply to understand the practical effect of those changes, particularly in the context of the wider programme of consolidation and reform of assimilated European Union law.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, who I am pleased to say is in her place and has spoken so eloquently, may feel a certain sense of déjà vu, having spent a considerable time on the Front Bench examining precisely these issues. My questions to the Minister are therefore straightforward. What, in practical terms, does Clause 45 change in the operation of the Act?
I start with some fairly basic questions for clarification. Will further secondary legislation be required to give effect to these provisions? If so, do the Government have a timetable over which they envisage this process taking place? How does this clause interact with the statutory instruments recently considered by the Grand Committee as part of the wider reform programme? This is a live and important area. As assimilated European Union law becomes domestic law and increasingly interacts with our financial institutions, the FCA and other relevant regulators, it is essential that Parliament has clarity on how these changes fit together and where accountability lies.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who always throws out good challenges. I welcome the opportunity and hope that I can persuade her with the answers I am about to give.
Let me say at the start that the Government’s objective is clearly to move to a market of fewer, larger providers so that savers can benefit from better governance, greater investment sophistication and lower costs. The measures in the Bill, together with the review and the regulation-making powers in Clauses 42 to 44, are carefully calibrated to reduce fragmentation or preserve the scope for innovation if and where doing so demonstrably serves members’ interests. That is the key.
I accept that much of the fragmentation is a product of history, but we have seen, in the pensions investment review and the responses that came back to the consultation, that master trusts are creating multiple default arrangements. We do not want to see the same issues arising over time as exist in GPPs, where members are in too many default arrangements that do not offer value. The point I would make to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, is that this is about members’ interests and returns for members. We are trying to address the multiplicity of default arrangements that do not serve members because they offer poor value.
Amendments 168 to 170 from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, would aim to broaden—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
My Lords, the Division Bells are ringing. The Committee will therefore adjourn for 10 minutes.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, as I was saying, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, described so well, the aim of her Amendments 168 to 170 is to shift from measures aimed at restricting the creation of new non-scale defaults towards a wider remit to encourage competition and innovation; I will come back to that in a moment. In addition, her Amendment 171 would expand the statutory review under Clause 43 to examine the extent to which such non-scale defaults contribute to competition.
Although we share the noble Baroness’s desire to see a vibrant, innovative market, we want these characteristics to operate alongside, not separate from, scale. Our concern is that the changes would leave too many default arrangements in place, entrenching fragmentation and preventing members benefiting from scale. Inserting a competition function into this regime would significantly extend the remit of the Pensions Regulator; again, I will come back to that in a moment.
The Government’s view is that there is no tension between scale and competition. Scale enables meaningful competition on quality and on long-term returns. I am sure that noble Lords will have had a chance to read the impact assessment on the Bill—it was green-rated, of which we are incredibly proud—which estimates that between 15 and 20 schemes may operate in this market after the conclusion of the transition pathway in 2035. We think that, by any measure, that represents a market within which successful competition can function; I do not think it would pass the oligopoly test that has been suggested.
However, we also need to remember that a key ingredient for competition is competitive charges for employers. Nest has helped lower charges through its public service obligation. It is important that employers continue to have access to pension products that offer low-charge options; Nest and others will play a key part in that going forward. We see no reason why competition for market share would not continue as it has done in the past. The drive for it is clearly still there.
The new entrant pathway places innovative product design at its core. The aim is to create a space for new solutions while maintaining a strong baseline of member protection. Our view is that, although we understand its underlying intent, we do not believe that Amendment 170 would add greatly to the opportunities for innovative schemes to remain in the market that are already set out in the Bill. Our new entrant pathway will place relatively few additional requirements on new schemes beyond those that exist today.
I agree that, alongside the innovation and competition that will come from existing schemes, there must be space for new market participants—the disruptors. We want to enable them to come to market, but there also needs to be confidence that they can grow to scale—over time, of course—and can deliver good outcomes for members. We recognise that a new scheme cannot come with scale and will need time to build up, obviously, but we need new entrants to demonstrate their plan to build scale.
Innovation is a good indicator of a scheme’s ability to grow. The noble Baroness described what is happening, but the truth is that there is a weak demand side, and it is already difficult, as we have seen, for a new entrant to gain traction. We do not seek to limit innovation, but we want regulators to focus on what innovation can deliver for members and its impact on scheme growth and member outcomes. In short, the Government support innovation that improves outcomes, but we do not want to perpetuate sub-scale defaults at the expense of savers’ interests.
On Clause 45, it might be helpful if I set out the purpose of the clause—
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Before the Minister moves on, entry is essential to innovation. The idea that the big firms or any regulators are going to be able to decide the right path for the innovative future is picking winners, and it does not work in my humble business experience.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, we want innovation. That is what I have just tried to describe. TPR has made innovation the central pillar of its corporate strategy. It launched an innovation service, and it has had the industry test innovative ideas and proposals such as new retirement products and the like. That has been up and running for some time. We want innovation but we want innovation that will serve member interests.
The noble Baroness asked about TPR and competition. While TPR does not have a statutory objective in competition, it does actively consider it, and it forms part of its strategy. Competition has been part of its evolution in a changing landscape; it started off in a world of single employer schemes and it is now in a very different world with a market that has moved towards master trusts and an authorisation supervisory framework. Value for money is a key enabler to drive transparency and competition in the market, and TPR plays a direct role in delivering that for the sector alongside the FCA.
Clause 45 amends the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 so that the FCA has the necessary powers to monitor and enforce the default arrangement requirements and support the review of non-scale default arrangements on a consistent footing with TPR. In practice, that will mean gathering relevant information for the review, considering applications for any new non-scale default arrangements and—should regulations require it after the review—assessing consolidation action plans.
To make the distinction, Clause 42 relates to restricting new default arrangements for schemes in the market. It aims to reduce fragmentation that does not serve member interests but allows new arrangements to meet member interests. It does not restrict new entrants to the market. Clause 45 allows new regulations to set out the powers for both TPR and the FCA to approve new default arrangements and will work with both regulators to ensure there is alignment and co-ordination between them. In short, Clause 42 introduces the restriction of new default arrangements without regulatory approval and Clause 45 gives the FCA the powers to do this in relation to its functions on FSMA. I hope that has cleared it up.
Lord Willetts (Con)
In the light of what the Minister has said, I am even more struck by the significance of Amendment 170. Given that there is going to be this change in the regulatory regime in terms of the FCA, I do think that Amendment 170 is the crucial one. It absolutely is not inconsistent with the Government’s objectives of scale—I have a lot of sympathy with trying to promote scale—but it just ensures that whatever the appropriate authority is, there is also scope for innovation. The more the Minister talks about the power of these clauses, the more I think the case for this amendment gets stronger.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
We may disagree on some of the approaches to the market, but we want innovation, so I do not disagree with the noble Lord on that. However, we want innovation that serves member outcomes, and that may mean different approaches to understanding what innovation does. We do not want innovation to pull away from scale.
The noble Baroness asked about timescale. The intention is that the review will be carried out in 2029, but it will need to follow the introduction of the VFM framework and contractual override measures for this to work. That was set out in both the final Pensions Investment Review and in the pensions roadmap, which the Government published. Hopefully that is helpful.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
Can the Minister explain why that timescale has not been put in the Bill? I cannot think of another review that has been written into law without a relevant timeframe being attached to it.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I think because it has to happen. It has to follow VFM; the pensions road map has set out the connection and the order in which things will happen. My understanding is that it is because it follows that.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this interesting debate. The big difference between what I have advocated and what the Minister has set out as the Government’s position is that she is describing what they hope to achieve by consolidation in the current market, but what I was trying to get at was future-proofing that market.
Markets stagnate unless they are subject to the kind of pressures that ensure that they continue to develop. I mentioned that customer choice is one that we can largely discount in the context of this particular marketplace. So we need to look for the other classic ways in which markets improve themselves over time, which is why I look to the role of new entrants and innovation. The Minister seemed to suggest that that could occur between these new larger players that have been created, but I believe that is fundamentally wrong because those players have a lot of investment in systems and infrastructure, and they are not very interested in significant disruption. That is not an absolute rule, but if you look at the experience of the telecoms industry, media and almost any other industry, you get disruptors from outside the marketplace. That is why in financial services we have fintechs disrupting the financial service marketplaces at the moment in many different ways.
Unless we are absolutely clear that we can facilitate that process of market disruption—it is to the long-term benefit of savers, because the markets will deliver those long-term benefits—we need to ensure that those markets stay vibrant. The pension provision market could easily seize up, broadly, with a smaller number of larger players dominating the pension provision market but not being subject to real competitive pressures because of all the hurdles put in the way of organisations that want to enter the market, whether via the new entrant pathway relief or via the regulations under Clause 43, which will squash them.
There is a fundamental difference between us on this side of the Committee and the Government. I am not at this stage challenging whether getting to a smaller number of larger players is the right answer—I accept that for the sake of argument—but I am concerned with making sure that the pension provision market itself has the right incentives within it to ensure that it remains relevant for the purposes of improving and protecting savers’ returns in the long term. I have to say to the Minister that we will return to this in one way or another on Report because it is a really serious issue.
I am absolutely not convinced that TPR’s arrangements—there is no reference to the pension provision marketplace in TPR’s powers and responsibilities—can be set alongside the FCA, which has to operate in a clear pro-competition environment. I do not think that is the right approach either, and I am not convinced about TPR’s approach to innovation, which is again about the existing players in the market rather than how you encourage new players. That has been done pretty successfully in the context of the FCA and the PRA for banking and insurance markets, by positively hand-holding new entrants and helping them through the whole process so that they can operate against the big boys. It is important that we allow little players to come and challenge the big players, because that is what produces the benefits in the long-term for consumers—for savers in this instance. I of course withdraw the amendment but, as I indicated, we have a fair way to go in this area.
Baroness Noakes
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment probes whether the “best interests” test is the correct test to use.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 175 is a probing amendment about the best interests test, which is a part of the power to make unilateral changes to FCA-regulated pension schemes in Chapter 5 of Part 2 of the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, for adding her name to this amendment.
The FCA requires the firms it regulates to comply with a consumer duty, which means that firms must act to deliver good outcomes to retail customers—in this case, those within pension schemes. The duty was introduced after a long period of consultation and is intended to replace a lot of rules-based consumer protection measures. This Bill, on the other hand, goes in the opposite direction by requiring the FCA to layer some specific rules in relation to the best interests test on top of the consumer duty.
My amendment, in effect, asks the simple question of how the best interests test relates to the consumer duty. In what ways does it differ from the consumer duty? If there are differences between the two, the Government need to be clear about what they are. Alternatively, they need to require the FCA to make it clear what the differences are, and the Bill does neither. Can the Minister say why achieving better outcomes for the members affected by the unilateral change is necessary? For example, if members are being transferred to another scheme using the power in new Section 117B, why is it necessary to go beyond good outcomes?
In addition, transferring members who will be better off, while leaving behind those who are no worse off, may mean that over time some groups will be stranded in uneconomic schemes because they are the last man standing. How does the Minister think that this will work if there are several transfers over time and each taken in isolation was better for some but no worse for others, but cumulatively there is a detriment for those left behind? In practical terms, how is this meant to work in practice? I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
I inform the Committee that if this amendment were to be agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 175A for reasons of pre-emption.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I support the general issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has raised. Of course, if this whole clause were deleted, the amendment that I am seeking in addition would disappear.
I want to speak to my amendment which is about new Section 117D(2), which says:
“The best interests test”, in relation to a unilateral change, is that it is reasonably likely that effecting it will”,
change. I do not like the words “reasonably likely”. We have to examine what “reasonably likely” means in legal terms.
Reasonably likely is a threshold of probability that is lower than the civil standard of “more likely than not”. More likely than not means above 50%, so reasonably likely means less than 50%. Having “reasonably likely” means that lower than 50% might have a better outcome, which is unacceptable. I find it hard to believe that that is what is intended. When you look at a phrase such as “reasonably likely”, you would think that the reasonable is somehow enhancing the likeliness, but in legal terms it is not. It is taking away from it. Therefore, I hope that that can be looked at and that the Government will address that issue.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I have just a short comment. The Minister needs to explain why existing protections are insufficient and how this power will be constrained in practice. The concern is that lowering the evidential bar for intervention risks undermining legal certainty, which we have before intervention, and then trust in the scheme governance. An override of contractual terms should be firmly evidence-based and used sparingly. When there is a contract and we are saying that the contract could be overridden, we need to know with some facts in what circumstances it can be overridden for some wider purpose which the Government think is needed. I do not think that is proven as yet.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I speak briefly to Amendment 175, tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. This amendment relates to new Section 117D, the best interests test as set out in Clause 48. This new section establishes the test that must be satisfied before a unilateral change can be made. It requires a provider to reasonably conclude that such a change is reasonably likely to lead to
“a better outcome for the directly affected members … (taken as a whole)”
and to
“no worse an outcome for the other members of the scheme”,
also taken as a whole.
Many of the questions that my noble friend and the noble Baroness have raised reflect concerns that have been put to us during scrutiny of the Bill. In particular, there remains uncertainty about what, in practice, is meant by a better outcome, and how that judgment will be assessed, evidenced and challenged. I say again, as we have said on different parts of the Bill, that we believe we need definitions and clarity.
We will listen carefully to the Minister’s response on this point. The clarity and robustness of the best interests test are critical, particularly where changes may occur without the explicit consent of individual members. If that clarity is not forthcoming, this may well be an issue to which we will need to return.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and others for their contributions. Clause 48 inserts new Part 7A, on
“Unilateral changes to pension schemes”,
referred to as “contractual override”, into the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. As has been clear, that will enable providers of FCA-regulated DC workplace pension schemes to override the terms of a pension scheme without the consent of individual members. To be clear, that will mean that providers will be able to transfer members to a different pension scheme, to make a change that would otherwise require consent, or to vary the terms of members’ contracts. The Bill provides important protections around the use of such powers, which I will come on to.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, asked why we want to do this—why change anything? I will explain. Providers can have thousands of DC arrangements for different employers, which will include a large number of legacy schemes that predate the introduction of auto-enrolment. Some of those arrangements will be delivering poor value for members but, due to the challenges of engaging with members, there is often little that providers can do about it. That is because, currently, providers have to gain individual consent from each member of the scheme to enact the changes that will be allowed under this part. That is time-consuming, costly and often simply impractical. In many cases, members will not even have kept their contact details updated.
Contractual override aims to address that issue and, in doing so, it would establish broad equivalence with the trust-based market, where trustees already have the power to conduct bulk transfers. The measure is necessary to help drive better outcomes for members and help to establish fewer larger pension schemes that are delivering value for money, supporting the scale measures and value-for-money framework also implemented by the Bill.
We want to protect consumers, so the Bill introduces a number of important safeguards, including the best interests test, which must be met and certified by an independent person with sufficient expertise before a contractual override can occur. That test is the focus of the amendments. Amendment 175 from noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, probes the test to assess whether this should proceed. She asked about the relationship to the FCA’s consumer duty—I think she asked why we need it at all if we have the FCA consumer duty. The answer is to provide an additional and clear safeguard. We believe that that is necessary given the nature of what is being provided for here.
However, the Government are committed to making sure that this works well. We will continue to work closely with the FCA as it beds in the consumer duty, and to engage with stakeholders about their experience of the duty and its impact. The FCA will develop its rules for contractual override in its usual manner and will consult on that, so there will be an opportunity for people to respond to the way that engages and to identify any of the issues that have been raised.
Amendment 175A from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, would alter the threshold for the best interests test from requiring that a change is “reasonably likely” to achieve a better outcome to requiring that “there is evidence” that the change will achieve a better outcome. I will explain why the Government believe that our test strikes the right balance between providing robust consumer protections and still making it practical for schemes to carry out a contractual override where it is the right thing to do. The test itself allows for a contractual override to take place only when the provider has reasonably concluded that the change is reasonably likely to lead to a better outcome for directly affected members and no worse an outcome for the other members of the scheme. I will break down some of the specific requirements that must be met for it to be satisfied. First, the provider must conclude that it is “reasonably likely” that the contractual override will lead to a better outcome for directly affected members, taken as a whole, and no worse an outcome for the other members taken as a whole.
The provision accounts for the fact that, although no provider can predict the future with certainty, they must conclude based on the information available, with a reasonable level of certainty, that the outcome is better for the directly affected members taken as a whole and no worse an outcome for the other members taken as a whole. That means that the provider must clearly evidence this assertion in order to proceed. We believe that changing the test from “reasonably likely” to “there is evidence”, as in the amendment, would lower the threshold of the test and reduce consumer protection, because the alternative wording provides no requirements about the strength of the evidence and leaves open the possibility that decisions could be taken on the basis of limited or poor evidence. By contrast, the existing wording requires providers to demonstrate that the outcome is a real prospect.
Secondly, a provider must reasonably conclude that the test is met. This requirement is deliberately included to address the risk of a provider reaching a conclusion that is not based on valid evidence or reasoning. The FCA, as the regulator responsible for contract-based workplace pensions, must make detailed rules regarding contractual override. That includes rules about the considerations and information that providers must take into account in determining whether the best interests test is met. As I have said, the FCA will develop those rules in its usual manner, which will include consultation.
Finally, new Section 117E requires that an independent person, with expertise to be defined in FCA rules, has to certify that the best interests test has been met, providing a further safeguard.
Overall, the contractual override policy establishes broad equivalence with the trust-based market and, in doing so, it delivers on a long-requested industry ask, promotes better member outcomes—which is key—and helps to achieve the wider goals for DC pensions that this Bill will deliver. We believe it strikes the right balance, and I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
I appreciate that the response was prepared on the basis of the wording, and I accept that my “evidence” wording was a marker. But will the Minister please look up what the legal “reasonably likely” really does imply? She does not have to take my word for it; I did look it up. Therefore, I maintain that the words “reasonably likely” need adjustment. I hope that can be investigated and accepted, and maybe the Government can come back with their own amendment.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am happy to reflect on the noble Baroness’s point. If it leads the Government to believe that we have phrased the test badly, then of course we will take appropriate action; if not, then we will say where we are.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I hope the Minister will look again at the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, has raised. In fact, that particular issue was raised in the Chamber either yesterday or last Friday—I cannot remember which, as all the days run into each other—in connection with another Bill going through. It very definitely is interpreted as sub-50%, so it is definitely a fairly weak formulation. I am quite surprised if that is what the Government want, so it is worth looking at again.
I do not think I got a satisfactory answer on the difference between the FCA having the consumer duty and what is intended under this Bill, except that the FCA is going to issue more rules about what “best interests” actually means in this context. To me, it seems to be going against the grain of FCA regulation, as I tried to point out earlier, and it could potentially cause problems in understanding.
The Minister did not respond to my point about the last men standing, which was that if you allow groups of members to be transferred because they will be better off and the others are not worse off then, in the long term, you structurally weaken what is left. Does the Minister have any views on whether that is the correct approach? A long-term problem cannot be avoided in that area, which calls into question whether you can leave members behind.
I am still very mystified as to how all this will work in practice, but I will reflect on what the Minister has said and what she has not said before determining whether to come back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment which seeks to test the definition of “default pension benefit solution”.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
I should inform the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 177 for reasons of pre-emption.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak to this group of amendments on guided retirement. Perhaps I should begin by saying that we welcome the direction of travel set out in the Bill in this area. The Minister will perhaps be pleased to hear that.
Poor outcomes at decumulation have long represented one of the most persistent weaknesses in the defined contribution system, and there is a strong and widely accepted case for providing better support to savers who do not or cannot make active and confident choices at the point of retirement. We will continue to engage constructively with the Government to ensure that these reforms succeed. However, their success will depend not on intent alone but on whether the framework is workable in practice, sufficiently clear in its operation and properly aligned across regulatory regimes. It is in this constructive and probing spirit that I have tabled Amendment 176, together with clause stand part notices on Clauses 49, 50, 51 and 57, which I will take together for the sake of brevity.
Amendment 176 seeks to probe the definition of a default pension benefit solution, and in particular how such defaults will be framed in practice. The Bill recognises, rightly, that default solutions will not be suitable for everyone, and it therefore requires trustees to consider members’ circumstances, needs, interests and characteristics when designing them, including the possibility of different defaults for different cohorts of members. That principle is sound, but it immediately raises an important practical question: how, in reality, are trustees expected to carry out these assessments in a consistent, proportionate and defensible way?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, my Amendments 177, 179 and 180 in this group are all probing amendments. Amendment 177 would delete Clause 49(3)(b). Subsection (3) defines “default pension benefit solution”, and paragraph (b) says that it must be
“designed to provide a regular income”
in an individual’s retirement. I wish to probe whether it is right to force all prospective pensioners into a lifetime income solution. There is a problem with “one size fits all”. If a pensioner is going to continue working on a full-time or part-time basis, as many do, they may not need to draw income for at least part of their retirement. But paragraph (b) seems to be a straitjacket requiring an income for all their retirement years, even if the pensioner does not need it. In addition, smaller pots do not lend themselves to lifetime income solutions because they can produce insignificant amounts of income and are also costly to administer. The Bill does not provide for a de minimis exemption.
Furthermore, a prospective pensioner who has significant accumulated debt pre retirement may well benefit more from clearing those debts with a capital sum than having income throughout retirement. I see that Clause 49(6) regulations can make provision about the term
“designed to provide a regular income”,
but that, using normal language, does not appear to be capable of encompassing the payment of lump sums without a lifetime income component within the use of such a power.
Amendments 179 and 180 concern Clause 50, which deals with the people called “transferable members”, who are basically those for whom their pension scheme determines that they do not fit with its scheme for pension default benefit purposes—I paraphrase, but that is the gist of it. The pension scheme determines that these are the members they cannot design a default pension for. Subsections (14) and (15) allow regulations to require certain pension schemes to accept transferable members, while subsection (16) allows regulations to prohibit or limit the charging of fees in respect of transfers. Hence pension scheme A can determine that some of its members are too difficult to devise default retirement solutions for, and then the Government can tell pension scheme B that it must take them and might not even get paid for it. This sounds like quite an extraordinary set of powers, which is why my Amendments 179 and 180 would delete subsections (14) to (16). I would be interested to hear the Minister explain why the Government need such draconian powers and what limits will be placed on them.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, there are three clauses here and one would have to be pretty churlish to want to reject and disagree with the thrust of what they are trying to achieve. But I am concerned, as is my noble friend Lord Younger, about how we might put in these contractual arrangements. I am concerned that we are going to sleepwalk into a situation where there is unrealistic customisation and we are going to set unrealistic expectations about the ability of schemes—particularly the larger schemes, because we know schemes are going to be much bigger than today—to give personalisation.
We are going to see, if I read these regulations correctly, a huge number of bespoke arrangements. There is going to need to be candour, not just from the schemes themselves but from the members when they are asking questions. What is the duty upon the person to take advice? Normally, at the moment, if you want to change your pension arrangements, you need to take advice and pay for it. Who will pay the fees? Is it the member or the scheme itself?
When I think about candour, it leads me down the path of thinking about what happens to people who are in impaired life situations. Perhaps they have cancer or another terminal disease. I am not going to trespass on the arguments that are made every Friday in your Lordships’ House, but as we have learned from those debates, there is a lack of certainty about people who are in those impaired situations.
That leads on to my noble friend’s point about capacity and capability of trustees to make these judgments—that is difficult. So I am entirely in agreement with the idea that people should be able to have control and a bespoke arrangement just for them, but I am concerned about the practicality of delivering what can be subjective judgments of the trustees. In these large schemes you may have to deal with hundreds or thousands of these applications.
In local government—a parallel world— the EHCP system mandates a personalised regime for children’s special educational needs. I suppose my concern is that it has led to a huge bureaucracy—a cottage industry of a huge amount of appeals, process and, of course, delay. When you have pensions, you cannot have a delay because people are at the end of their lives—are they going to make it?
I want to agree with the thrust of this, and these are probing amendments, but I am interested in the Minister laying out in some detail how these bespoke arrangements might be calculated and defended by trustees with lots of other things to do. I am also very much drawn to the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about being realistic about the current ways of work, in which people have blended retirements, and about the requirement to have indexation and all those sorts of things. It does seem complicated, and I am interested to hear what the Minister might say about it.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
This part of the Bill is particularly important and the part to which I gave the strongest welcome. There is, inevitably, a caveat: we do not know much of the detail because it depends so much on what the regulations say and require. But this is the necessary and right framework to provide pathways for people to get the sort of benefits in retirement that best suit them.
I have some concern that there has been discussion of having more than one default, which rather defeats the concept of a default. Either the member will have to choose the appropriate default or someone else will, which places a particular responsibility on whoever will take the decision. It is important.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I want briefly to say how strongly I support Amendment 176, so eloquently proposed by my noble friend Lord Younger. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, ignores the fact that the pension reforms of the last 15 years have led to a massive increase in the number of employees saving for retirement. I entirely agree with him that we are not there yet—not by a long chalk. There is much more to do. But for him to say that we are here to discuss this Bill as a result of the failure of the last Government to manage a proper pension scheme is unfair.
The point is made by my noble friend Lady Noakes in her Amendment 177, where she seeks to omit paragraph (b) because it assumes that all retirees are in the same boat with the same needs—just a guaranteed income for the rest of their life. She is absolutely right that different pensioners need different default schemes according to their needs—depending on whether they have debt or no debt, and whether they have heirs and successors to whom they are going to leave their assets. All these things are different, and personal choice plays a big part in that.
It is also important to consider, as my noble friend mentioned, the necessity for the regulators to be aligned. The Pensions Regulator has no objective to drive competitiveness and growth, compared with the FCA, which has such an objective. This difference is quite a problem. Without alignment of objectives, trust-based and contract-based schemes could be subject to different expectations. Savers could face inconsistent retirement experiences depending on the type of scheme and competitive distortions could arise between regulatory regimes. Clarity on timing, standards and supervisory approaches is critical. I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I have three very simple questions. First, why in some areas is the delegated legislation by negative resolution and in some cases by affirmative resolution? In Clause 49, regulations under subsections (1)(b) and (6)(a) are by negative resolution, as are some in Clause 50. I would just like to understand why.
Secondly, I am very aware that people will differ, as has been said. Some will want to take their money earlier than others, perhaps because they are using their pension as some sort of early day fund, or perhaps because they have a serious illness and do not expect to last long. Is that variation provided for? I would like that assurance.
Thirdly, if somebody has two pensions—perhaps one saved under auto-enrolment, which is what we are talking about, and another, perhaps because they worked in the public sector, a defined benefit scheme—how is the pension provider covered by these clauses going to allow for that difference of need?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, Clause 49 is quite interesting. Clearly, we have been on a journey for some time. Going back 35 years, Maxwell raided his pension fund, completely screwing over his employees at the time, which led to the 1995 Act as a consequence. There were other items in there as well, but that brought in a much more controlling approach to aspects of pensions.
One of the liberations that happened in the previous pensions Acts a decade ago was that people did not have to do a particular thing with their money. I know this is money that was topped up by aspects of tax relief and the like but, ultimately, instead of being forced in a particular direction with an annuity in a different way, people had a choice. I am conscious that various scams happened when people were transferred from one to another. I hope those people will find a special place in hell; they have deprived people of the money that they had rightly gathered over the years and scammed them out of it. But ultimately this did give a choice to people, with all that money, about how they wanted to spend their retirement—instead of somebody else telling them what to do.
I am concerned that this clause, in effect, requires a guaranteed solution. I appreciate that my noble friend Lady Noakes has talked particularly about removing the need for there to be a regular income as part of this solution, but if benefit solutions are going to be required by this legislation, there should not just be a choice of a minimum of one. There should be at least two, so that people can still have that choice. That is why in Clause 49(1)(a), I think that “one or more” should be “a minimum of two”, if that is going to be the way that we go.
The other thing that is not clear to me—perhaps I just have not spent enough time reading this—is what happens if people do not want the default pension. What choice do they have? It does not feel as though they have any choice at all. I am trying to understand something: what is the real problem that Ministers and the Government are trying to address here? Do not get me wrong—we want to make pensions as simple as possible for people. I know that my former employer used to set up a particular approach, saying that it was easy and that you could buy into it, but it was your choice what you did. That is why I am concerned about Clause 49 in particular. I hope that, by the time we get to Report, the Minister will have reconsidered whether ripping away freedoms is the right way for the people whom the Bill is intended to support.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, for introducing this debate, and to all noble Lords.
Let me briefly outline the problems that the chapter on guided retirement is seeking to address. The landscape is changing. I will not get into the detail of how we have gotten to where we are with my noble friend Lord Davies, but the reality is that we are now in a position where fewer than a million people in the private sector are saving into a DB pension, whereas more than 15 million are saving into DC schemes. Of course, unlike in DB schemes, DC members carry the risk themselves; what you get out depends entirely on what you put in and how it performs. The result is that DC savers face risks: the risk of savings not lasting through later life; the risk of market fluctuations; and the risk of inflation eroding purchasing power. They also face decision‑making risks, as retirement choices can be complex and poor decisions can have lasting effects. Clause 49 enables the Government to respond to those risks, putting savers first. Our objective is the vast majority of DC savers no longer having to make complex decisions about how to secure a sustainable income in later life, although—I say this in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey—the freedom to choose absolutely will remain.
Let me explain how we envisage this happening. When DC members approach their scheme to access their savings, they will be presented with the default pension solution; in acknowledgement of my noble friend Lord Davies, let us call them “default plans” from this point onwards. At this point, the member will have the option to say yes to the default plan or say, “No, I want to choose a different way to use my assets”; that could be an alternative in their own scheme or elsewhere. We will explore this, including how schemes can give appropriate support, in our consultation. The interaction should not be a surprise to members at this point because we will ensure that, through appropriate communications, members hear about the concept of a default plan from very early on in their pension journey.
Clause 49 will require pension schemes to design and develop pension plans based on the generality of their membership, by which we mean gaining insight of what the vast majority of their members want from their pension assets. The noble Viscount, Lord Younger, wanted to know how they are meant to do this. We know that many schemes already have member panels; we expect these, as well as other channels to obtain member insight, to continue. The Government will not specify unless necessary but the regulator will work with schemes, through guidance, on how to identify the needs of their members. The Government will also consult on whether there should be minimum standards for gathering information so that the solutions reflect the generality of the scheme membership.
We anticipate that the evidence from scheme members will indicate that there is no one common set of aspirations, so we are giving the scheme the ability to introduce more than one default plan. Where there is more than one default plan, there will be a simple triage to determine which one the member is offered. Again, the benefit of this approach is that no member will have to make a complex decision on how to take their pension payments, except to request that they want to start receiving payment. As has been mentioned, the default plans must provide a regular income during retirement. We will consult on the detail, but it will be for trustees to determine exactly how they achieve this; there is scope for product innovation.
The clause also makes provision, as has been noted, for exemption where that would not be appropriate. I will turn to Amendment 178, which relates to this, in just a moment but, crucially, savers will retain the choice to access their pension another way. We know that retirement is not a linear experience and that circumstances change both at and after retirement. Life events such as deciding to work part-time, health conditions and bereavement can all factor in and have an impact on household incomes. That means that gathering insights and engagement with members will be important, alongside well-designed and flexible plans.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
I have not intervened on this group because I have not really delved into it. I wonder whether the Minister will go into some of the points she is making. Obviously, there are cases where you want consolidation in order to produce a solution that gives a reasonable retirement income, rather than having it in different bits. However, I am concerned that some people will want to keep things in different pots and have different bits. When the guidance on what might be exempted and so on comes out, will there be any consultation on that so that there is provision for people who have got alternative incomes and other means? They may want to defer taking their pension for a lot longer than is the norm while they have other income.
There is a whole universe of things; indeed, a whole universe of things is happening to me on these issues, in terms of whether I start something or leave it. It is all made more complicated when the Government come in and tax it, but there are all these things that go on. Will all of that be open to a public consultation before guidance comes out to make sure that it is taken account of?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I do not know who we had in mind when we were designing this measure, but I am pretty confident that it was not the noble Baroness. If she were to ring up and say, “I want to take my pension pot”, and we said, “Here is a solution”, she would absolutely be able to say, “Do you know what? I don’t want to do that, thank you very much. I already know what I want to do with it”, or to have a conversation about the alternatives. This is really aimed at and concerned with those who would not be in a good position to make these complex decisions.
However, the consultation will explore these things. We have already talked about what kinds of thing trustees might have to take into account. There will be a range of things. If there is anything specific on which I can write to the noble Baroness, I will do so, but the intention is to consult on the nature of how this will work in practice and all of the design requirements. That is one of the reasons for keeping so much in regulations: to keep it flexible.
We are already finding, though, that providers are coming up with interesting, innovative solutions. Some schemes are offering flex then fix, which would give some flexibility in the years ahead. There are schemes that are doing different things, and we do not want to shut those down because we want there to be alternatives. I do not want to give the impression that we are forcing people into it, that they have to do only one thing before being allowed to take their pension or that their pension freedom has been taken away; none of that has happened because that is not what we are trying to do. I thank the noble Baroness for giving me the opportunity to clarify that.
Amendment 180 would remove regulation-making powers to enable the charging of fees for transfers to be prohibited or limited. The Government recognise that pension schemes rely on the charges they impose on members to operate the administration of the scheme effectively. There is an existing cap on charges, which can be placed on default funds under auto-enrolment, whose purpose is to shield individuals from high and unfair charges that could significantly erode their savings. The guided retirement measures were very conscious. They will introduce the concept of a default route and were, therefore, alive to the risk that individuals placed in a default plan may not scrutinise the costs involved. Therefore, we expect to consult on any detailed policy set out in regulations; we would test any assumptions about the impact of introducing a cap or a prohibition, including for transfers, as part of that consultation.
The Clause 51 and 57 stand part notices from the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, seek confirmation that Clause 51 will provide members with clear and consistent information. I am very happy to provide that assurance. The Government understand the power of communications and the importance of members understanding the default pension plan provided by the scheme, alongside the other options. Through this clause, the Government have the power to specify the format and structure of communications. There is also a requirement that all communications issued by schemes are in clear and plain language to help members make better decisions regarding their retirement income when they wish to do so.
As the noble Viscount mentioned, Clause 53 requires the development of a “pensions benefit strategy” by relevant pension schemes, which will be expected to include details of how the scheme will communicate its default pension plans to its members. Schemes will have to make these strategies available to scheme members and to the regulator for effective scrutiny; the Bill includes corresponding arrangements in respect of FCA-regulated providers. As a minimum, we expect the strategy to present the evidence base for the chosen default or defaults to give the member the opportunity to compare their circumstances and those on which the default is based.
Clause 57 is the corresponding provision in relation to FCA-regulated schemes. This inserts into the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 a new section that will deliver default pension benefit solutions to FCA-regulated pension schemes, ensuring that members on both sides of the market benefit from default solutions. Clause 57 requires the FCA to make rules, having regard to the rest of Chapter 6 of the Pension Schemes Bill, to make default plans available to members of FCA-regulated pension schemes. This helps ensure that regulatory frameworks are aligned and that members experience broadly equivalent outcomes; it also maintains fairness and consistency across the market. Clause 57 also requires the FCA to aim to ensure, as far as is possible, that the outcomes to be achieved by its rules in relation to this chapter achieve the same outcomes as the rest of this chapter achieves in relation to schemes regulated by TPR.
The noble Viscount asked how schemes will be supported rather than forced into defensive behaviour. The regulator will issue guidance for all trust schemes. DWP officials have been engaging, and will continue to engage, with industry ahead of introduction, including through formal consultation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked why the negative procedure and why the affirmative one. The affirmative procedure has been used for certain delegated powers where the power touches on a central aspect of the policy. For example, the power in Clause 49(4)(d) can be used to influence the defaults designed and offered by a scheme, so the affirmative procedure is used.
I have tried to answer all the questions that were asked. I hope that those explanations have been helpful and that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw or not press their amendments.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, before I conclude on this group, I thank in particular my noble friend Lady Noakes for her probing amendments, which ask a number of important questions.
I will make a few points and rounding-up comments but, before I do, I want to pick up on my noble friend Lord Trenchard’s remarks. I must admit that I was very surprised to hear the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on his view of the pensions landscape; they were fairly forceful. As he will expect, I entirely disagree with his comments. I just make the point that our party brought in improvements to auto-enrolment and introduced the dashboard system; I pay tribute to my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lady Stedman-Scott. I have more to say but I will give way.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I just want to pick up the noble Viscount’s point about auto-enrolment. It was a Labour Government and a Labour Bill that introduced automatic enrolment. The only change that the coalition made was to delay it, thereby reducing people’s future pensions.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
We brought this into effect. Of course, that takes us back to the coalition in 2010-15, but so much has been done since then. I will not go on but, if the noble Lord feels so strongly about this, why does he not probe his own Government more on why there is nothing in the Bill about saving more for retirement? I have not even mentioned the points in the Budget on salary sacrifice. I just wanted to get that in, as the noble Lord has become quite political.
Moving on swiftly, Amendment 177 probes whether all default pension benefit solutions are required to provide a regular income and whether that income must necessarily be for life. Here, I pay some respect to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, because he rightly used the expression “pathways for people”, which are what this is all about. I am grateful to the Minister for providing some clarification on this point. She used a very good expression, “freedom to choose”, which is key in our discussion on this particular group.
However, given the significance of this issue for members’ retirement outcomes, it is vital that this clarity is communicated, not just within this Committee but clearly and consistently to those whom these reforms are intended to serve. My noble friend Lord Fuller spoke about the importance of personalisation, which I think is a very good expression.
Communication will be especially important in the context of guided retirement, where members may reasonably assume that a default implies a particular structure or guarantee unless told otherwise. The use of the word “default” is more than semantic, as I know the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has laid out in the past—I note she is not in her place. Ensuring that expectations are properly set will be central to building confidence and avoiding confusion at the point of retirement. Again, my noble friend Lord Fuller raised the importance of ensuring that certain cohorts must be particularly noticed and properly treated.
Baroness Coffey
“Review: transfer of the Financial Conduct Authority’s pension regulation functions to the Pensions Regulator(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a review to assess the viability of transferring the Financial Conduct Authority’s pension regulation functions to the Pensions Regulator.(2) The review under subsection (1) must include an assessment of whether the Pensions Regulator should take on responsibility for the regulation of defined contribution pensions, except for self-invested personal pensions, in place of the Financial Conduct Authority.(3) The Secretary of State must lay the report under subsection (1) before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment explores moving to one regulator, the Pension Regulator, for all pensions (both defined contribution and defined benefit) that are not self-invested private pensions (which would stay with the Financial Conduct Authority).
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords may want to consider Amendment 180A an amuse-bouche before we get back into the real meat and honey, as it were. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for having also signed this amendment. We have already made it clear that the Pensions Act 2008 set out the requirements for auto-enrolment into pension schemes, which was commenced and brought into effect in 2012. As such, all employers are now required to provide a workplace pension scheme and to make contributions.
The question I pose in this amendment is not whether pensions should be well regulated—that is a given—but whether the current regulatory architecture best supports effective supervision, good member outcomes and long-term system stability in this emerging ecosystem of pensions. I contend that it would do so only if occupational pensions, though not self-invested pensions, were regulated solely by the Pensions Regulator without the overlapping or parallel oversight of the Financial Conduct Authority. This is fundamentally an issue of regulatory design.
The Pensions Regulator was established with a clear statutory mandate: to protect members’ benefits; to reduce the risk of calls on the Pension Protection Fund; and to promote the good administration of work-based pension schemes. Its regulatory approach is deliberately scheme-centric, focusing on governance, funding, the employer covenant, trustee capability and long-term risk management. By contrast, the Financial Conduct Authority’s framework is product and transaction centric. It is designed around the regulation of firms that either make, distribute or advise on financial products, with a particular emphasis on conduct at the point of sale, disclosure and consumer choice.
The FCA’s tools, culture and regulatory philosophy—whether that is speed, competition, disclosure or transactional fairness—are shaped, in effect, by retail finance. That approach is fine, but I suggest to the Committee that it is not so well suited to not only the current pensions world but the evolving world of pensions that this Bill, in particular, is accelerating. Let us be clear: the FCA’s consumer duty is to the individual. That is not what we see with workplace pensions more broadly, where we have the trust-based approach.
The ongoing involvement of the FCA in pensions risks creating, if it has not done so already, regulatory overlap without regulatory coherence. I am aware that there are statements of co-operation but, particularly with the evolution of the pensions world for employees through the Bill, this should lead us to consider a change in the regulatory approach. The contract-based approach is evolving and, as we have already debated, will now be able to be overridden. For that reason, I come back to the question of whether we should think about the Pensions Regulator being the sole regulator, apart from for self-invested personal pensions; I can see that the consumer duty element under those individual schemes is well suited to the FCA.
The danger of dual regulation is real, costly and can be confusing. The uncertainty is evident. In having two different ways, there are some conflicts over how certain assets or schemes can be treated. There is the risk of misclassifying pensions as short-term financial products, rather than what could be really long-term social contracts. We know that people often remain disengaged from their pensions. Their outcomes therefore depend far more on scheme design, trustee competence and the long-term investment strategy.
I think that the Pensions Regulator understands this reality much better. It recognises that good outcomes come from strong governance, clear fiduciary duties and long-term risk management in not only defined benefit schemes but defined contribution schemes. As I have already mentioned, I am conscious that, although there is collaboration, the risk of regulatory drift is still real. This would be solved by moving, in essence, to having one regulator for all occupational pension schemes.
The Pensions Regulator has already shown that it can evolve. It has strengthened its focus on value for money, professional trustee standards, consolidation and other elements on which it is doing well. A single regulator would deliver clarity, coherence and confidence, which is why I have tabled this amendment seeking a review. More specifically, in subsection (1) of the proposed new clause, I suggest
“a review to assess the viability”.
I say “viability” deliberately but then, in subsection (2), I offer a little leeway on that review, including whether the Pensions Regulator should take it on. This may feel to many like dancing on the head of the pin but, actually, we are seeing these two regimes in parallel. In effect, we are starting to see almost the removal of the contract-based approach. As a consequence, we should grab the challenge and make this change.
I am conscious that the Minister may ask, “Why did you not do this when you were in power?”, which is a fair question. But as my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott will know from the time we were doing the 2021 pension scheme, when we were bringing in certain measures, including dashboards, once the Treasury gets hold of something it does not want to let go. Let us not pretend otherwise.
We are coming on to a debate shortly about superfunds. I am not going to reveal every battle that we had then; nevertheless, it was certainly a challenge. That is no disrespect to my other noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, because she was a great Treasury Minister. But it is a case of making sure that this Bill, in particular, is accelerating what is happening. It is going back, in effect, almost to a paternalistic or maternalistic approach, so it makes sense to at least review this change now. I hope the Minister will give it careful consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, the advantage of Committee is that we can bat around some batty ideas without troubling the scorers too much. I am not going to violently disagree with either of my noble friends or the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, in this respect, but it oversimplifies the pensions landscape. I totally endorse the idea that we need to have a fresh look at the regulatory environment within which pensions operate, because things have not gone right.
There has been a regulatory groupthink. The example of the LDI, the liability-driven investments disaster, is a case in point, because the LDIs anchor schemes that are in deficit and can never climb out of that. That is sort of how they work. The regulator has bamboozled and misdirected trustees over many years not to focus on maximising the returns, so that there is sufficient money in a scheme to pay the pensions as they fall due over its lifetime—that would be a good long-term objective. No, the regulator has forced them to look, three years at a time, at how they can focus on the deficit, not on the term. There has been a failure of regulation and that needs to be remedied.
The amendments in the names of my noble friends and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, focus on the Pensions Regulator, which we have heard is much more corporate-focused, and the FCA, which is much more individually aligned, but they fail to see the wider landscape. Any review, in my opinion, should consider the Bank of England because, ultimately, it directed the whole industry and the other regulators to go down the LDI route. That finished and grievously damaged so many private schemes on that false altar of deficit focus rather than asset maximisation.
Then there is a triumvirate. There is the Government Actuary’s Department, which I accept is not occupational; it is for public schemes, but it sets the tone. Then there is His Majesty’s Treasury, which has just been mentioned, and the Pension Protection Fund. I agree with the thrust of the amendments that have been tabled, and we are only in Committee, but I would widen the scope of the report to include those other actors—the Bank of England, the Government Actuary’s Department, the Pension Protection Fund and His Majesty’s Treasury—so that we can see regulation in the round, because unless we do so, we will not cover up those regulatory cracks that some schemes have fallen down.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Once again, I find myself in the position of being in broadly the same area as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. I agree with much of what he said. We can always be in favour of reviews. The only substantial objection is that the Secretary of State—or more accurately, the hard-pressed officials—has better things to do, particularly with having to implement the Bill when it is an Act.
The Pensions Commission is also crucial. The noble Viscount, Lord Younger, for whom I have a lot of respect, challenged me on why I am not doing more on adequacy, in effect. Of course, the answer is that I fully support the Pensions Commission; that is where the focus should be on that area. I think my noble friend the Minister is aware of some of my views on the level of inadequacy in pension provision, but the commission is where it should be at.
Pensions are inherently political. I make no apology for making political points. I am against the idea of moving towards a joint regulator. There are two broad types of pension provision: individual contracts and employer-sponsored collective provision. I am very much in favour of the latter as opposed to the former. The former has, and always will have, severe problems, whereas collective provision is what has led the high standard of private provision across, broadly, half of the working population.
The problem with having a single regulator is essentially cultural. One or the other approach is bound to predominate in its thinking. It is impossible to ride two horses, unless you are in a circus, and that is not where we want to be. We need a regulator for collective employer-sponsored provision, and a regulator for market-based provision. That is what we have got so, in a sense, in my few remarks I have already carried out the review that has been called for and reached a satisfactory solution.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, what worries me is that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, says we should grab the challenge. I am not sure that I am ready to grab the challenge and not convinced that we should abandon, in any way, the Financial Conduct Authority. I wonder what representations have been made by the FCA on this. I would like to hear how the FCA feels about the Pensions Regulator taking over and what has happened in the past.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I can assure the noble Lord that the FCA will not give anything up. In fact, it would probably rather swallow the Pensions Regulator.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
Maybe that would be a good thing. I am not convinced that the regulator pushing away from primary legislation to regulation is necessarily the way forward. I am not convinced that what has happened to date has failed. Therefore, I am not sure why we want to change this without adequate proof. The idea that the FCA wants to swallow up everything else is fairly normal in the gladiatorial forum that we have. I would like to see what the FCA and others have to say about this before we make a final decision.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I speak to both Amendments 180A, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey, and Amendment 206, which stands in the name of my noble friend Viscount Younger of Leckie and myself. Both amendments address the regulation of pensions and how the regulation is best exercised in the interest of scheme members and future pensioners.
It was the intervention of my noble friend Lady Coffey at Second Reading that first prompted me to reflect more deeply on the role of regulators. As my noble friend argued then, and has argued again today in speaking to Amendment 180A, this Bill misses a significant structural opportunity by retaining two separate pension regulators. I agree with her. There is something inherently odd about the fact that very similar pension products can be treated differently depending on whether they fall within the remit of the Pensions Regulator or the Financial Conduct Authority. That observation is not controversial; it is simply a reflection of how the current system operates.
I recall clearly the passage of the then Pension Schemes Bill in February 2020 and remember responding to amendments from across your Lordships’ House by explaining that personal pension schemes were regulated by the FCA, rather than the Pensions Regulator, and that imposing requirements on personal pension providers through that legislation would risk creating a patchwork of overlapping regulatory oversight. Providers, it was argued, would otherwise be required to respond to two separate regulators in relation to the same activity. That was the Government’s position at the time, and it illustrates that the existence of regulatory fragmentation in this area is not a matter of dispute.
A great deal of work has gone into managing the fragmentation, with strategic documents, dating back to 2018, seeking to grapple with the issue. The FCA and the Pensions Regulator have published joint regulatory strategies explicitly acknowledging the complexity that arises where their remits intersect and the need for close co-ordination. More recently, an independent review of the Pensions Regulator in 2023 again highlighted the challenges inherent in this divided regulatory landscape. Taken together, these developments point to structural issues in the regulatory ecosystem that can, at the very least, create confusion and the risk of inconsistency.
It was on the basis of that experience in government and of careful consideration since then that I sought to identify what might realistically be done in this Bill. I came to the conclusion that Amendment 206 represents a proportionate and pragmatic compromise. It would require the Government to establish a formal published protocol setting out clearly how the Financial Conduct Authority and the Pensions Regulator co-ordinate, how responsibilities are divided between them and how they communicate when regulating the pensions industry. The evidence shows that there is complexity, overlap and, at times, confusion between the two regulators. Stakeholders frequently complain of unclear lines of responsibility and the regulators themselves openly acknowledge that co-ordination is difficult, hence the repeated reliance on joint strategies and informal arrangements.
It was our sense that the problem is one not of outright contradiction but of opacity, complexity and accountability. Amendment 206 is, therefore, carefully targeted at the problem, which is clearly evidenced. It seeks to improve co-ordination and clarity without asserting a level of regulatory failure that has not yet been conclusively demonstrated. That does not place it in opposition to the argument advanced by my noble friend Lady Coffey; indeed, I would be very happy to work with her, as we did so constructively on previous pension legislation, to strengthen this area further.
In my view, a formal co-ordination protocol has three important virtues. First, it can evolve over time as the regulatory landscape changes. Secondly, it can be tightened if problems persist or new risks emerge. Thirdly, it can itself become the evidence base for any future decision to pursue more fundamental consolidation of regulatory functions, should that ultimately be judged necessary. For those reasons, I commend Amendment 206 to the Committee and urge the Government to see it not as an obstacle but as a constructive and proportionate step towards greater clarity, accountability and confidence in the regulation of pensions.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. Things are never dull when she is around. Frankly, that is quite a thing to say for a pensions Bill—I apologise to all the pensions nerds.
I thank noble Lords for introducing their amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, said that her amendment would require the Secretary of State to do a review exploring the viability of moving the FCA’s pension regulation functions, apart from those for SIPPs, to TPR. On Amendment 206, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, wants a statutory joint protocol, formal co-ordination mechanisms, a published framework for oversight and the mandation of regular joint communication.
The Government keep the regulatory system under continuous review. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has given us an absolutely fair challenge. As we have already found here, the reality is that, when you come to discuss this, some people are on team FCA, some are on team TPR and some—such as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller—do not like any of them and want to throw everybody else into the mix and have somebody reviewing all of them. So it is fair to say that it will not be easy to achieve consensus on this.
Let us come back to the principle. The Government’s view is that there is still a fundamental difference between trust-based and contractual pension schemes. Contract-based pension schemes are based on an individual contract with the saver. As the pension market continues to evolve, and as we move towards a more consolidated market, we will need to ensure that the system evolves with it and that there is more regulatory alignment where it is really needed. However, TPR, the FCA and other bodies, including the PRA, are on to this. So I suppose the exam question here is: do we need one regulator to take over the other, or is it possible to create a regime for regulatory alignment and joint working? I will try to make the case for the latter; the noble Baroness can tell me at the end whether I have a pass or a fail on the exam paper.
The Government’s view is that TPR and the FCA have distinct roles. Each has its own framework, reflecting the range of pension types and the need for tailored oversight. They operate under distinct statutory frameworks, and existing arrangements already enable effective co-ordination between them. TPR and the FCA have established a joint regulatory strategy that outlines their respective roles; that collaboration is underpinned further by a formal memorandum of understanding and, where necessary, joint protocols on specific issues detailing how the two regulators co-operate, share information and manage areas of overlap. They have published a joint document outlining their respective roles. They run joint working groups and consultations. They publish shared guidance, and they conduct regular joint engagement with stakeholders. These mechanisms are well established and provide the flexibility needed to respond to developments in the pensions market. That close collaboration ensures the same good outcomes for pension savers, regardless of legal structure, and aims to avoid the potential for regulatory arbitrage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, mentioned the independent review of the Pensions Regulator by Mary Starks in 2023. That review recommended that no changes should be made to the framework. The review concluded that it was far from clear what the benefits of shifting to a single regulator would be and whether that would in fact outweigh the costs and the risks of distraction.
Moving on, we do not believe that a statutory requirement for a joint protocol is needed, as proposed in Amendment 206. It risks duplicating existing arrangements and in fact replicating parts of the memorandum of understanding and joint regulation strategy that are already in place. Where specific regulatory risks would benefit from more formally aligned regulatory approaches, the organisations consider the need for a joint protocol. An example would be the 2019 joint approach to guidance for trustees and advisers supporting pension members with decision-making exercises.
We also do not believe that the review proposed by Amendment 180A is necessary at this time. We continue to keep the system under review to make sure that it continues to deliver. Any future changes need to be evidence-led and shaped through engagement with stakeholders. In the light of that, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, will feel that I have passed the exam test and is able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I am interested, of course, in the opinion of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, about the exam, but the Minister has provoked me to respond. I am not against the FCA or the Pensions Regulator. As she says, they have their roles and responsibilities. But there is a piece of work on the interaction between all the actors in the pension space. The old saying is, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, but there has been enough that is broken to require a fresh look. All the bilateral arrangements between TPR and the FCA, which she explained and which are all very interesting, do not talk about those other wide environmental links to the Bank of England, GAD, the PPF and His Majesty’s Treasury. That is where there should be some work, with a little humility about how the scheme has gone.
I am not making a political point here; I am just making the factual observation that the schemes are not working as I think any of us would like them to. This pensions Bill remedies some of those shortcomings, but the excessive focus purely on the FCA and the Pensions Regulator is obscuring that wider picture. I am not asking to promote some hatred and discord; I am just asking to try to get everyone sat around the table so that we can work out not just the roles and responsibilities but the linkages—and avoid the groupthink, because that is the worst thing. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for aligning himself with my points. So it is not just me, unless the noble Lord is against everything as well, which I do not think he is.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for clarifying his view and apologise if I misrepresented it. I will not respond at any length but will simply say that there is already considerable join-up between the actors in this space. I do not feel it is necessary to have a single review just to work that out.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I thank noble Lords for contributing to this debate. Certainly, in speaking to pension providers that are regulated by both TPR and the FCA, this brings additional complexity, which is another reason for this to come in. I appreciate that my noble friend Lord Fuller suggested this could be a batty idea. It is not a new idea. The 2013 report by the Work and Pensions Select Committee chaired by Dame Anne Begg—its Labour chair—called for it then. It was linked to the fact that we were starting auto-enrolment. The whole landscape for people, particularly those new to pension contributions and the like—and indeed for existing people—was shifting to workplace occupation-based pensions, which are all regulated by TPR. So I think it was going for simplicity in that regard.
My noble friend is particularly cross about an aspect of the Pensions Act 2004. I would have invited him to perhaps table an amendment to the Bill with his objections to the statutory funding objective, which is the element that particularly irks him. It replaced the minimum funding requirement, but that is a debate for another day, rather than trying to resolve it all now. I thought the Minister did well, particularly in reading out her brief and keeping the Treasury happy. That is no bad thing for any Minister in a Government but, of course, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, introduces the next amendment, I remind the Committee that, although we have made fantastic progress today, we have a hard stop. We can probably stretch to about 8 pm. I do not want to constrain the debate but it would be preferable to finish this last group today rather than having to break it up, as we did on our previous day in Committee.
Clause 65: Approval of superfund transfers
Amendment 181
Baroness Noakes
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes the timing of ceasing to have active members.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, will be pleased to know that this will be my shortest intervention. With my Amendment 181, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has added her name, we now move on to superfunds, which are an excellent innovation that allow employers to shed their DB liabilities while also protecting or enhancing members’ interests.
My Amendment 181 is a small, technical amendment designed to address an issue to which I was alerted by Pensions UK. Clause 65(2) sets out the onboarding conditions that must be met for superfund transfers. Superfunds are designed to deal only with non-active members, as is clear in subsection (1); however, for some reason, the time at which this condition is tested is when the application for approval of the transfer is made by virtue of subsection (2)(a). I understand that it is quite possible for arrangements for transfer to a superfund to be made on the basis that members will become deferred—and, therefore, no longer active members—as soon as the transaction has taken place. I am therefore not sure what purpose is served by requiring all of those members to be deferred at the date of the application to the regulator, since that could be many months before the transfer will take place.
I look forward to the Minister’s comments and beg to move.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, everyone—apart from insurers, perhaps, who prefer buyout and the regulatory cash bonus it brings them—is in favour of superfunds. They should improve member benefit security. They can enhance members’ benefits, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, just said. They can return cash to employers when appropriate, supporting UK businesses. They can also invest more in productive finance than a buyout or a DB scheme can.
However, numerous barriers make it difficult for superfunds and my Amendments 182 and 183 seek to address two of them. Amendment 182 seeks to remove gateway test 1, which is the test that prevents a scheme that can afford a buyout entering a superfund. The policy of pushing everything to buyout is intended to address risk, but it is not always in the members’ best interests; that could be considered more. Discretionary benefits, which can often include things on which expectations are based, may be lost. For example, spouses’ entitlements and increases in pensions are often discretionary; I know that that is the case in parliamentary schemes.
In a buyout, discretionary benefits are likely not to be paid, but a superfund could pay them. There seems to be some underlying assumption that superfunds do not serve risk reduction, but that does not reflect the extremely secure funding position that superfunds are held to by the regulations. Additionally, the test is unstable because funding levels vary. A scheme can start the process unable to afford buyout, and therefore be deemed able to go into a superfund, but if later on it could afford buyout part-way through, it would be required to reverse out and would be forced into a buyout. That can mean a lot of wastage of cost and time, as well as worse-off pensioners. Removing the test would give schemes more flexibility in the course they pursue, and may be better for the economy. If they chose a superfund, it would mean that more schemes could keep money invested in pensions and pay out more generously, rather than that extra money being lost in the insurance companies.
Amendment 183 is about the wind-up trigger and the protected liabilities threshold. This in, in essence, the point at which a superfund’s funding drops to such a level that it must close and enter the PPF. The recent PPF indexation means that the protected liabilities threshold is now above the low-risk trigger—that is, the technical provisions threshold—which is upside-down from the policy design, where the low-risk trigger is intended to be a less critical warning scenario than the wind-up trigger and is the point at which the scheme funds must be boosted by investor money.
This upside-down formulation will make it harder for superfunds to attract investor capital and will probably push pricing up closer to buyout levels, narrowing the slice of the market that superfunds can operate in. That is good if you are shareholders in insurance companies but, again, not for pensioners, who lose benefits. The amendment proposes a “lower of” formulation for the definition of the protected liabilities, which would set it at lower and more reasonable levels.
There could be other ways to fix this or remove the protected liabilities threshold entirely and rely on trustee powers in distressed situations, which is normal practice for regular DB schemes. But staying in the upside-down formulation does not seem right and risks stifling the nascent superfund model. I appreciate that this is a recent development because of the indexation and possibly one that the Government did not originally foresee, but it none the less needs tackling.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 182 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted. Gosh, superfunds—that has been quite a journey. It must be about six years ago that I apparently received a letter from Andrew Bailey, who I think was running the Prudential Regulation Authority at the time. I never actually received it, but I read it in the FT and on Sky. It told me that it all seemed very unfair compared with the Solvency II reform, which is what insurers had to go by. That is why I am strongly concerned about Clause 65(2)(a) being in this Bill.
I think we are seeing the hand of the ABI again here, trying to basically squeeze out other activity when we should be focused on what is in the best interest of the pension scheme members. We also want to try to make sure that we do not have never-ending firms going into the PPF. The superfunds, which I recognise the Government have embraced through this, are definitely a good option but are different to having an insurer buyout, even with some of the changes that have happened away from Solvency II to whatever version of Solvency UK. There has been more reform with less risk around some of the margins in that regard.
So I encourage the Ministers to think again about whether subsection (2)(a) is really the right approach for the outcomes they seek. Otherwise, why bother? Why bother having a superfund if you can get only the equivalent of what it is to get the insurer buyout?
I could go further, but I am conscious that the dinner business break is bringing exciting business and that the Committee wishes to finish by a certain time. So I will leave superfunds for another time, perhaps in the Bishops’ Bar. But, with that, I support my noble friend in Amendment 182.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I will speak to Amendment 181 tabled by my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lady Altmann, and Amendments 182 and 183, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, and my noble friend Lady Altmann. I will also address the broader issue of the role of superfunds within our defined benefit pensions landscape.
At the outset, I want to be clear that my understanding is that the Government remain committed to creating a thriving and credible superfund market. That ambition is welcome because superfunds have the potential to support two important public policy objectives. First, they support member outcomes; properly regulated superfunds can improve security for members and, in the case of a run-on superfund model, they offer the additional prospect of enhanced benefits over time through the sharing of surplus and investment upside.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Everyone agrees that they are a good idea, but in her reply, can my noble friend the Minister tell the Committee what serious contenders there are to take advantage of this quite complicated and lengthy piece of legislation? The practical experience so far is that a good idea has never quite cut it, and other options are now becoming available. Are people actually going to go down this road?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Bowles, for introducing their amendments. I will start with Amendment 181, which would broaden the range of schemes able to apply for a transfer into a superfund by effectively including active schemes.
On the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the responses to the DWP’s initial consultation on DB consolidation noted clear practical difficulties in assessing the future of a scheme. It is not clear how the regulator would conclude that the scheme will have no active members at an unspecified time of transfer. Furthermore, closing DB schemes can be a protracted exercise, where unforeseen complicated issues can arise. This Government, and previous Governments, have been consistent in saying that superfunds should be an option only for closed DB schemes. To avoid such complications for the scheme trustees and the regulator, Clause 65 sets out that closed schemes alone can transfer to a superfund and only where they are unable to secure member benefits with an insurer at the date of application.
Amendment 182 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, would broaden the range of schemes able to apply for a transfer into a superfund by removing the restriction that schemes which can afford insurance buyout cannot transfer to a superfund. By removing this requirement from the Bill, superfunds could compete directly with insurers. That would risk superfunds offering endgame solutions in the same space as insurers, while being held to a lower standard in terms of member security.
The onboarding condition was introduced following industry response to the consultation on superfunds which first identified this risk. There was concern that employers may see superfunds as a way to relinquish their responsibilities at a lower cost than insurance buyout, and that trustees could be pressured to transfer into a superfund when a buyout solution is available. It is important for us to remember that insurers and superfunds operate under very different regimes. Insurers under Solvency UK requirements have stringent capital requirements and their members are fully protected by the FSCS.
Superfunds are built on existing pensions legislation and, as such, the PPF acts as a safety net providing compensation. The PPF provides a great deal of security, but not as much as the FSCS. Superfunds offer a great deal of security, but their capitalisation requirements are not as stringent as insurers as they are not designed to be as secure. That is because superfunds have been designed as a slightly less secure, more affordable endgame solution for schemes that are well funded but cannot afford buyout. They are not intended as a direct competitor for insurance buyout. The onboarding conditions address the risk of regulatory arbitrage, recognising those differences.
Clause 65 therefore provides clarity by ensuring that only appropriately funded schemes can transfer to superfunds. As introduced, it includes the power to substitute another condition if needed. We will consult with industry to assess what, if any, further refinements may be needed to protect scheme members.
Amendment 183 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, would require superfunds to assess their protected liabilities threshold at the lower of a prudent calculation of a scheme’s technical provisions or based on a Section 179 calculation of the buyout price of PPF-level benefits. This amendment, and the noble Baroness, recognise the importance and impact on this threshold of the Chancellor’s Budget announcement that the PPF will provide prospective pre-1997 indexation for members whose schemes provided for this.
The purpose of the protected liabilities threshold is to ensure that in the rare circumstances where a superfund continues to underperform, the scheme is wound up and member benefits are secured at the highest possible level. The threshold is an important part of member protection and has been designed to prevent members’ benefits being reduced to PPF compensation levels should a superfund fail. The threshold also recognises the risk that scheme funding could continue to deteriorate in the time it takes to wind up.
Clause 71 therefore aligns the protected liabilities threshold with the calculation of those protected liabilities. It sets the threshold at a level above the Section 179 calculation, so that members in a failing superfund receive higher-than-PPF benefits. There is the added benefit that PPF-level compensation that is bought out with an insurer protects the PPF itself.
We recognise the impact that changes announced in the Budget have on the superfund protected liabilities threshold, and that it would not be good for members’ outcomes if a superfund is required to wind up prematurely when there is still a strong likelihood that benefits can be paid in full. Any changes to reduce the threshold, however, will require careful consideration and need to ensure that members and the PPF are protected. The level of the protected liabilities threshold will be subject to further consultation with industry as we continue to develop the secondary legislation.
The Committee will also note that for those instances in which technical provisions are lower than the Section 179 valuation of a scheme, Clause 85(4) allows the Secretary of State to provide by regulations that a breach of a threshold has not taken place. These calculations have the potential to converge, and sometimes swap, in very mature schemes and we acknowledge that that occurrence is more likely following the introduction of pre-1997 indexation for prospective PPF benefits.
The use of this power will aim to ensure there are no unintended consequences for well-funded superfunds in those circumstances. It is not our intention to place any additional pressures on superfunds. Providing pre-1997 indexation for PPF benefits is the right thing to do. All members in schemes supported by the PPF benefit from knowing they can count on higher levels of compensation should the worst happen—a fact that should be celebrated. We are committed to working with industry to create, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, questioned, a viable and secure superfunds market and will consult on issues such as these following Royal Assent to ensure we appropriately balance the metrics of each threshold.
My noble friend Lord Davies asked me to look forward to see what demand there will be for this. That is quite hard to do, but we estimate that around—I am told—130 schemes with £17 billion in assets may take up the option of entering a superfund, but we recognise these figures are highly uncertain. It will depend on how the industry reacts, future economic conditions and competition. The numbers, of course, could be significantly greater if the market grows.
It has been an interesting discussion, but I hope in the light of my remarks, the noble Baronesses feel able not to press their amendments.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, at least we are going to please the noble Lord, Lord Katz, this evening. We might even manage to stick within our normal timeframe and not go beyond.
I thank the noble Baroness for setting out the rationale for the time at which schemes have to demonstrate that they are closed. I will consider that carefully. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, will consider carefully what the noble Baroness has said in respect of her amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Speaker’s Statement
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, given the public interest and for the convenience of the House, I have decided to inform the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments has today received notification from the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, of his intention to retire from the House, effective from 4 February. I will formally notify the House tomorrow in the usual way.
Tributes: Lord Wallace of Tankerness
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, many of us aspire to be a good politician, to do good and to be a good person. More times than not, we fall short. Jim Wallace was a good man who saw it as his role in life to do good things. He did, and they will last. With great sorrow, we have been denied the opportunity of hearing a valedictory speech in this House from Jim. He would have been characteristically modest. We can perhaps be a little immodest on his behalf for a now profoundly missed absent friend.
After his early political days in the lowlands of Scotland, he triumphed in its most northerly part. When he was elected, many said he was the MP for Jo Grimond’s seat, but in short order we referred to it as Jim Wallace’s Orkney and Shetland. As MP, MSP and Peer, he saw serving in Parliament as the means by which good things can be done, not the end in itself. He was what a parliamentarian should be.
When speaking in Parliament Hall on the day of the opening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, Jim was achieving his ambition and the dreams of many in delivering what Gladstone could not a century before. He said to all those newly elected MSPs:
“As the people’s representatives we should never forget the hopes kindled by this historic opportunity”.
He approached his role to meet those hopes as the first Liberal in office since the Second World War with zeal: land reform, law reform, social reform, education reform, prison reform—radical but workable—and all have endured, none reversed. Jim was a reformer, but he knew that for reform to last, it had to be done well. He said of the new Holyrood:
“Our Parliament must be open and inclusive—willing to consult and willing to listen”.
That sentiment embodied his own approach to politics.
Jim could be exceptionally partisan, though, but only with football. A determined Blue Nose—supporter of Glasgow Rangers—he was dutifully, but distractedly, carrying out one of his last duties as Deputy First Minister before being succeeded by my noble friend Lord Stephen in May 2005 at the launch of the Promoting Unst Renewable Energy project, on a day ironically too windy for anything to work. He was distracted, as it was unknown to him who was winning the Scottish league. But as his then private secretary subtly gave the thumbs up during the non-switching-on event, Jim then became, in the words of his private secretary, “the happiest I’ve ever seen him”.
Jim was a very confident Liberal, but very comfortable with others who were not. He felt that co-operating with others did not diminish his position or dilute his beliefs. Rather, it allowed progress to be made for the better end. Agreement with others, for Jim, was to get traction and longevity. We all knew that reaching agreement was Jim’s strength, but he approached it always from a granite set of principles. I once discussed a tricky time in the Scottish Parliament on a controversial law reform measure, and he said to me, “The test is when you defend the human rights of the people you hate”. Although that word was never associated with Jim, his words have become my test.
When he gave the first Charles Kennedy Memorial Lecture, he mourned the loss of a great friend prematurely. In the lecture, he remarked on their close friendship that
“there was much camaraderie, much political discussion and analysis, even intrigue—and much fun”.
The same for us with you, Jim.
Jim was literally admirable, with a political determination tempered by real kindness, and a seriousness of purpose sweetened by wry humour. Jim would tell of his period as Justice Minister in 2002, when Nelson Mandela visited the Lockerbie bomber in jail and, at a global press conference, criticised the way he was being kept, and by extension Jim himself. On hearing the rather worrying condemnation of Jim by the world’s most venerated man, his teenage daughter said, “Did Nelson Mandela just attack Dad? That’s cool!”
Engaging in a policy discussion with Jim was a thrilling and quite often intimidating experience. He had a prodigious intellect, phenomenal memory, confidence of argument and the ability to deploy cutting wit, like a sharpened sgian dubh. You needed to be on your game or your game was lost, as I learned on too many an occasion. I would start off fully confident with my argument and not long after accepting an early defeat, I would just pour us lots more whisky, enjoy the man and admire his abilities so comfortably worn. Those in law, civil service and politics would see the same. He excelled in company, while never dominating it. For those of us who knew him well, his ability to doze off mid-discussion, awaken and display his remarkable acuity as before was a skill to behold.
Jim loved serving as Moderator and said that he was more in awe in addressing the Kirk’s General Assembly than any of the three parliamentary Chambers he had mastered. On taking office as Moderator, he said:
“At all levels, and not least in our upper echelons, we should be ready to take risks to do what is right”.
For Jim, the risk would be calculated, prepared for, researched and tested, but that preparation did not dent the determination for boldness of thought and action. He led my Scottish party; he led government, he led the Kirk and in law. He also led these Benches, not by diktat—Jim knew this to be a futile exercise for a group of Liberals—but through intellect, argument, respect and a reasoned, methodical approach. We were lucky to have a colleague we admired, but one who made it easy to love him too.
John Buchan wrote of another great Scot words which are also appropriate for Jim:
“perfectly honest, perfectly fearless, and perfectly true”.
I grieve for Rosie, Clare and Helen and the grandchildren, who will have so many years ahead without Jim, but I say with love that we are ever so grateful that you allowed us to share Jim in our lives. Jim was a good politician and a good person who strove for and did good. The country is better, and lives are improved as a result of what he did. He was the best of examples of how politics can and should be the most honourable of callings. His faith was deep and he knew that, when his time had come, he would be going to a good place. That time is the wrong time—far too soon a time—but that place is now extremely lucky to have him.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, made a very powerful, heartfelt tribute. In his words, we all pictured the man that we grew to admire in this House. Paying tribute to friends and colleagues who have passed is never easy. When their passing is so sudden, unexpected and before their time, our sense of loss is profound. We had no idea that, when Jim spoke in the House last December, it would be the last time we heard him here. Lord Wallace was widely respected and held in great affection, and his loss is acutely felt.
Early last year, he spoke on the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. As a long-standing elder and a former Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, he played an active, helpful role in the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill. One was a controversial Bill, and the other had the support of the entire House; yet his approach and tone were exactly the same in each—thoughtful, level-headed and wise. Indeed, in that great way Jim had with words, he ended his contributions on the Church of Scotland Bill with a reference to the historic stain that the Bill removed, allowing Roman Catholics to hold the office of High Commissioner. He was looking forward to playing an active role as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, where his legal background and sound judgment would have been a real asset.
A true believer in devolution, as we have heard, he was always willing to work across party boundaries and engage more widely to make progress. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, spoke with admiration of how they worked together to meet the challenge of bringing the Scottish Constitutional Convention to a consensus—no easy feat. The disparate nature of the various parties, churches and civil society meant that this was not going to be easy, and Jim’s acute political and legal skills, alongside his gentle, engaging manner, made for a formidable combination. They succeeded because they were of one mind, and I am told that they even decided the size of the Scottish Parliament over the late Lord Campbell of Pittenweem’s dinner table.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I add my tribute to the late noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and extend our sincere condolences to his wife and children, his friends, and indeed those colleagues closest to him in this House.
Lord Wallace’s extraordinary record as a dedicated public servant was not only long-standing but wide-ranging. Coming to political consciousness in his early teens, he campaigned for the Scottish Liberals in the 1970s, eventually being elected to the other place to succeed, as we have heard, Jo Grimond in representing the islands of Orkney and Shetland. He went on to lead the Scottish Liberal Democrats, helping to design the blueprint for devolution and steering the party through the 1997 referendum campaign.
In the new Scottish Parliament, he was appointed as the first ever Deputy First Minister, and indeed served on two occasions, as the Leader of the House mentioned, as Acting First Minister during that early heady period of home rule. Later, following his translation to your Lordships’ House—a place he termed “the Elysian fields of British politics”—he earned a further crown when he succeeded the noble Lord, Lord McNally, as leader of the Liberal Democrat Peers.
As a junior Minister, I had the privilege and pleasure of working alongside Jim during the years of coalition government, when he served as Advocate-General for Scotland—a role for which he was surely typecast. He was at all times—even at stressful times—modest, calm, congenial and genuinely collegiate, as well as politically and professionally sure-footed. Those skills were born of an acute intelligence. He possessed a wonderful knack of getting straight to the nub of a matter and setting out his arguments in a very few words, without ever seeming impatient. As has been noted in several obituaries over recent days, he was someone who was genuinely liked by people of all political persuasions and who was known for his ability never to let party get in the way of constructive dialogue and co-operation. In these more polarised times, we would do well to learn from his example.
It is those qualities, evidenced in his political career, that help us to understand Jim Wallace the man—someone whose values, as he said himself, were grounded in his religious faith. His father was an elder at Annan Old Parish Church and he was an elder and member of the choir at St Magnus Cathedral, Kirkwall. In 2021, he served the Church of Scotland as the Moderator of its General Assembly during the pandemic and, for this period, set aside his political affiliations. With the death of Jim Wallace, the Liberal Democrat Party and this House have lost a very valued friend and colleague. He will be greatly missed.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, with a heavy heart, I rise on behalf of these Benches to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and to extend our condolences to his wife Rosie and family. His courtesy and genial nature were at the core of his approach to everything in a record that spanned many decades and had many facets.
We were the third legislative chamber to benefit from his wisdom and gentle approach. As has been noted, he arrived off the back of great success in the Commons and at the Scottish Parliament. He also proved a most canny coalition government partner in Scotland. He became Scotland’s first Deputy First Minister in 1999, having negotiated various Liberal Democrat priorities into that first Scottish Government’s programme. In the Holyrood election of 2003, Liberal Democrat polling numbers actually rose—which has not always been their experience following a period of coalition.
Jim remained as Deputy First Minister and was again able to negotiate his priorities into the coalition agreement of that second Government. After stepping back from front-line Scottish Government and standing down as an MSP, he came here. Here I pause, as I reflect on Jim as a man of faith.
The Church of Scotland has had a Moderator since 1562. John Knox was the first, although I am not sure Moderator was the right word for him. Moderators generally serve for a year. In 464 years, there have been only three Moderators who were not ministers of the Kirk, one of whom served for only a month.
As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, Jim was our Moderator in 2021. A photograph at the opening of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland that year shows four obviously very happy people at the front door of Assembly Hall in Edinburgh. They were the Queen’s representative that year, who was Prince William, and Jim, Rosie and Nicola Sturgeon. To be able to bring warm and genuine smiles to those faces simultaneously was surely Jim’s magic and some improvement on John Knox’s approach. Needless to say, his year was a great success.
Jim had become Moderator because of his capacity as an elder of St Magnus Cathedral in Kirkwall. This brings me to Orkney. Not far from Kirkwall is Tankerness. As said, Jim represented Orkney for 18 years in the Commons, for eight years in the Scottish Parliament and, frankly, for another 18 years here in our Parliament. In Orkney he was immensely popular and passionate.
Here I will take a loop, in that, about three years ago, I went to buy a set of bagpipes in Glasgow. In the bagpipe shop, I met someone who had been born in Orkney and is a very well-known piper in Scotland. Indeed, I had gone to that bagpipe shop because he was an Atholl Highlander, so I could get a discount. He immediately asked, “Do you know Jim Wallace?” so I said, “Yes, absolutely”, and he told me just how popular Jim was in Orkney. He was immensely popular, he was passionate and he was a genuine Orcadian.
I close with his words, said in December in St Magnus Cathedral at the 50th anniversary celebrations of the Orkney Islands Council:
“So what do I conclude from my experiences of representing Orkney and working with councillors and successive governments? In a nutshell it is that people matter”.
That is good guidance for us all.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, from these Benches, I associate my comments and condolences with those who have previously spoken. Lord Wallace was kind, welcoming and generous to new Bishops joining this House. Both he and his wife Rosie are extraordinary people. He in particular made a significant impact on shaping the very culture and society in Scotland we see today across the whole trinity—if I may use a word dear to him—of law, politics and church. His two main belief systems were indeed the Church and politics. They supported each other, and although, as we have heard, he never served as a minister in the religious sense, he was ordained: he was an elder, and many across Orkney and beyond have reported how pertinent and encouraging his sermons and hominies were.
Lord Wallace took his spiritual duties especially seriously, never compromising his faith to his other priorities, but notably fulfilling the Sunday elder’s duty at St Magnus Cathedral even during parliamentary election campaigns. I am not sure what his party machine thought of that, but as has been mentioned already, he once remarked that he found the Church of Scotland General Assembly more awe-inspiring to address than the House of Commons. I trust he is now debating in an even more inspiring chamber than any earthly one. While I am unconvinced that any of us on these Benches would be of quite the same view when comparing Parliament to the Church of England General Synod, it is perhaps that generosity which underlines why one political reporter notably described Jim as Scotland’s favourite uncle.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to follow these eloquent tributes on all sides to my friend, Lord Jim Wallace, and to extend my sympathy to Rosie, Helen, Clare and the family following his tragic death last week. I am also very grateful to have spent four years of my life with him as my Deputy First Minister and for all that we were able to do together.
The then Jim Wallace co-led the Scottish Constitutional Convention with my noble friend Lord Robertson. I am sure he would agree that without the input, determination, pragmatism and principle of Lord Wallace, the Scottish Constitutional Convention would not have produced the scheme that became the Scottish Parliament and united Scotland behind the biggest constitutional change this country had seen since universal suffrage. He co-led the yes campaign in a referendum to secure that Parliament, and, in 1999, following the first elections to the Parliament, became its first Deputy First Minister.
In many ways, he co-led the cabinet that so many of us who are now here served in. He was partnered during that time to two shadow Secretaries of State for Scotland and a Secretary of State for Scotland. He was deputy to three First Ministers, a Minister for Justice and a Minister for Enterprise. He was acting First Minister on two occasions, and he was dependable, trustworthy and very, very good in the Chamber.
He passed the first legislation—I often claim to have passed the first legislation as Finance Minister in the Parliament back in 1999, and mine was the first planned legislation, but he was actually first, if we tell the truth. Following the walking free from Carstairs of a very dangerous man called Noel Ruddle in August 1999, a month into his job as Justice Minister, Jim Wallace had to prepare emergency legislation to close a loophole linked to the ECHR and deliver the Mental Health (Public Safety and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 1999. He did so with a calmness and a clarity that we all saw and recognised in this Chamber over recent years.
But that was only the start, because no other Minister carried as much change improving lives in Scotland in that first four-year Parliament. In his role as Justice Minister, he revelled in the opportunity to use the powers of the new Parliament to modernise Scottish law in a way that had been impossible for the absence of time here at Westminster in the decades previously.
He delivered more Bills than any other Minister in that Cabinet by a long way—from family law to court reform, judicial reform, land reform, freedom of information, adults with incapacity, investigatory powers, police and fire service reform, sexual offences and marriage reform. As Deputy First Minister, he was not afraid to lead and was willing to do things together, whether that was setting targets for renewables ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom or banning smoking in public places, as we did towards the end of his time as Deputy First Minister.
He had a great sense of duty, but he was also great fun. His colleagues tell a great story about him. There was a charity event at his local school in Orkney. Someone challenged him to have his legs waxed as a contribution to their fundraising. He agreed and, despite his screams, completed the task. The school received a big donation. The school pupil who had conducted the ceremony and tipped the wax across his legs was Neil Gray, who many years later became Health Secretary for Scotland. He has certainly had a few close shaves in recent years.
Lord Stephen (LD)
I first met Jim Wallace 43 years ago. I recognised him. He was standing at a bus stop outside the Station Hotel in Aberdeen. He was a 28 year-old newly elected Member of Parliament. I was a 23 year-old Liberal councillor. He had no idea who I was, but I introduced myself and offered him a lift to his public meeting. Off we went. On the way, he told me stories about the great Jo Grimond. Grimond had said that he would never trust a Secretary of State for Transport until he saw them coming to debates by bus or on the Tube. Little did I know during that 20-minute conversation that Jim Wallace would go on to have such a profound effect on my life and, more importantly, such a huge impact on the life of our nations.
Let us, for one moment, set aside everything that Jim did in the Scottish Parliament. We will come back to that. Look only at his 18 years in the House of Commons as MP for Orkney and Shetland, as Chief Whip and in many Front-Bench roles. Then he spent 19 years in this House from 2007 until last week, as Minister and law officer, Advocate-General for Scotland, leader of the Liberal Democrats here and a year as Moderator of the General Assembly, when he stood down as a Liberal Democrat but never stopped being a liberal. All that—those 37 years alone—would amount to a remarkable political, parliamentary and Church career.
Of course, the Scottish Parliament was the pinnacle. From the start of his leadership of the Scottish Liberal Democrats in 1992, Jim moved steadily towards his pivotal role in shaping, delivering and then helping to lead the new Parliament. He worked very closely with George Robertson, now the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, with Donald Dewar and then, after Donald’s tragic death, with Jack McConnell, now the noble Lord, Lord McConnell. Jim had enormous respect for them all. The words of tribute from the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, have been even more poignant in the tragic circumstances of his own loss of his brother, which, by cruel coincidence, came on the very same day as Jim’s death. Our thoughts are very much with the noble Lord.
I had been elected to the other place in 1991 in a by-election and went to live during that time in a small room in Jim and Rosie’s London flat. Our friendship grew. Beyond politics, there were family visits to the Wallace home in Tankerness in Orkney. Jim was always great fun. Helen and Clare were young, and my children were even younger. They always called him Uncle Jim, and he would sing along to “Agadoo-doo-doo, push pineapple, shake the tree”, with the dance steps and the hand movements—I have the video. The low point in our relationship came in May 2000, when Jim presented the Scottish Cup to his team, Rangers, after they narrowly defeated my team, Aberdeen, 4-0. He was beaming as he handed over the trophy. I immediately sent him a text message encouraging him to smile less, but not using those words.
Jim met many remarkable people. He once hosted Kofi Annan at a United Nations dinner in New York and explained, of course, that he had been brought up in Annan in Dumfriesshire. Jim later ended the evening singing Burns songs and was delighted to discover that Kofi’s wife was called Nane. Obviously, out of respect, he said he resisted the temptation to sing anything with the words Nanannan.
Jim embodied the very best of politics, the very best of people He was courteous, collegiate and consensual, but with a strong and persuasive voice. He combined kindness with humility, authority with deep humanity. He held things together repeatedly at a time when the new Scottish Parliament was being tested to its limits, and he did more than that. He helped deliver many things, such as free personal care for the elderly, the abolition of tuition fees, a strong new freedom of information regime and PR for local government in Scotland. None of these things was easy.
Above all, it was not about the policies. Jim was about friendships, across all parties and places, about values and faith, and about family—most of all about family, Rosie and Helen and Clare, his brother Neil and, of course, his grandchildren Catriona, Ella and Adam. “It’s very special”, he said to me recently, “being a grandfather”. Jim Wallace, you too were very special, very loved, and you will be very dearly missed.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, I would like to say a few words of my own in tribute to Lord Wallace of Tankerness, or Jim as he was known to his many friends both inside and outside Parliament and from all parts of the political spectrum. Lord Wallace lived a life of public service that stands as an example to us all, of dedication, hard work and love of his country. When he joined the House of Lords in 2007, after stepping down as an MSP, the deep emotional bond that this son of Dumfriesshire had forged with his island constituency was reflected in the title he chose for himself as Lord Wallace of Tankerness, of Tankerness in Orkney. As the convener pointed out, he was pretty popular there, achieving in the 1999 election for the MSP for Orkney a remarkable 67% of the votes.
Jim was a kind, devout and decent man and a good friend to me. At a time when politics is held in low esteem, he was a model of public service, a great parliamentarian both north and south of the border and one who adored this House of Lords. He was, as we say in Scotland, gathered much too early. He will be much missed and mourned by so many folk who held him in the highest regard. My most heartfelt sympathies go out to his wife Rosie and their loving family.
Two-child Benefit Cap: Foreign-born Children
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Maclean of Redditch
To ask His Majesty’s Government what proportion of increased spending on the two-child benefit cap will be for foreign-born children.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, children should not grow up in poverty. It is bad for them, bad for their aspirations and, ultimately, bad for the country. Experts agree that the most cost-effective way to reduce child poverty is to end the two-child limit, and that is what we are doing. There are strict rules that govern who can access benefits. Parents who are foreign nationals can access universal credit only with a valid immigration status of a kind that gives them the right to access public funds.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I agree that the public do support the safety net of welfare, provided that it is targeted and fair, and goes to British people rather than migrants to the country. However, the Government’s own data shows that fewer than 1% of those who will benefit from the uplift in universal credit have both parents working, and 41% of families have no one working. This does not seem fair to a lot of working families, who have to make very hard choices about the size of their own family. So how many exactly of the “most people” the Minister refers to are British and how many are not?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, removing the two-child limit is very well targeted: it is targeted on children. Over half—some 59%—of households affected by the two-child limit are in work, and almost half of households affected by this policy did not have any of their children while they were receiving universal credit. The reality is that our immigration system in this country is tough, and our benefit system is tough.
I cannot give the noble Baroness the figures that she wants, because the category “foreign born” is not a category in our benefits system. DWP needs to know what someone’s immigration status is rather than where they were born or what their background is, because that is what determines it. Most foreign nationals must live in the UK for at least five years on a temporary visa before they can apply for settlement and, therefore, even be eligible for public funds, and the Home Office has announced plans to double that.
This Government are going to lift children out of poverty and give them the best start in life, but, for those kids whose families are eligible, it is not right to limit support because of their background or where they were born. No child should feel the effects of this policy.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
This somewhat xenophobic Question concerns increased spending as a result of abolishing the two-child limit, which even the noble Lord, Lord Freud, who introduced it, described as “vicious”. Could my noble friend the Minister perhaps remind us of the cost of not abolishing the cap, in respect of how child poverty has a knock-on effect on health, education and public services, including children’s social care services?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My noble friend is so right. The cost of failing to tackle poverty is too high—for those children but also for our country. Hungry children do not arrive at school ready to learn. Poorer children are more likely to have mental health difficulties by the age of 11. They are more likely to have poorer employment outcomes and earn less. She is absolutely right: the rise in child poverty in England between 2015 and 2020 is estimated to have led to 10,000 more children entering our care system, with all the consequences for those children, as well as for the country and for the Exchequer. A child’s health opportunities and prospects should not be determined by how many siblings they have or by the accident of their circumstances. We will lift children out of poverty and this country will benefit from that.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer. To follow on from that—to get to the crux of the matter—could she tell us what assessment has been made of the cap’s overall effect on child poverty? Can she clarify and put on the record what the actual effect was and how we can benefit by the removal of the cap?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right about the effects of this. The Labour Party in government pledged to tackle child poverty. What this Government have brought forward is a child poverty strategy which, including removing the two-child limit, will bring another 550,000 children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament. That is what we are here to do; that is what we are shooting for.
I stress that this is about fairness. Of course, our benefit system is there to support those for whom this is their home; those who contribute. Of course it is there to be fair, but it is also there as a safety net, and our job is to get that balance right. In the case of children, it surely has to be right to tackle child poverty, to give them the opportunity and for the country to benefit from that.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, given the scale of additional public expenditure involved, and while recognising that welfare policy will not be the primary driver of migration, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that lifting the two-child limit does not inadvertently act as a pull factor for economic migrants to present initially as asylum-seeking families, and how will this be monitored?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I have seen no evidence that anything as specific as this has any impact on asylum. I am sure the noble Lord is aware that our system is so strict that, for somebody to be able to come to this country, they need to meet the requirements. If someone is in the country illegally, they are not entitled to access public funds. If they are entitled to universal credit, they are expected to work. Our system is designed to support people into work but also to require that they work. This year the DWP will consult on making sure that we look at the relationship between residence requirements and our benefits system and prioritise resources for those who are making an economic contribution—but nothing in that says that we do not want to tackle child poverty. I am sure the whole House agrees with that.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, can my noble friend say a little more about how this progressive policy relates to the wider child poverty strategy, in particular the wider rollout this week of breakfast clubs in schools and, going forward, perhaps incremental universal free school meals, as some of us would aspire to, for all school-age children?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. We have another question in a moment about the child poverty strategy, so I get to spend 20 minutes talking about child poverty. Tackling child poverty has to be done on so many fronts and our strategy looks at people’s incomes, the costs they are facing and how we can give them opportunities. I am so proud that the Government have decided to do things such as extending free school meals to those on universal credit. Children need to arrive at school ready to learn, and you cannot be ready to learn if you are hungry. It is also a way of tackling the cost of living for so many families who are struggling. I am proud that we are making childcare more available and getting more support to those who are on universal credit who want to do the right thing and work but face barriers in their way. And I am proud that we are rolling out Best Start family hubs and all kinds of measures. Our children are not just our present; they are the future of our country. If we invest in them, we invest in Britain. It is the right thing to do.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, let me highlight some more statistics. The Government’s own impact assessment states that the addition to the benefits bill will be £13.6 billion over five years. Families with five children will gain £10,900 per year and those with six children will gain £16,600 per year, and almost half the households involved have no one in work. This is extremely worrying. This policy is surely rewarding worklessness. How are the Government intending to prevent the lifting of the two-child limit weakening work incentives or increasing long-term benefit dependency among larger families?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure the noble Viscount knows that, although we are lifting the two-child limit, the Government are not lifting the benefit cap on the total amount that any household can get. The benefit cap encourages parents to take responsibility and work towards financial independence. There is, for example, an exemption from the benefit cap if somebody is in work and earning at least the minimum wage for the requisite number of hours. The challenge for us is to make sure that parents want to work, that we support them to work and that we take away the barriers that are in their way, for example on childcare or being able to get the jobs and the support they need. These things have to be separate. We should be supporting our children, but children benefit from their parents being in work wherever possible, so we should be doing both of these. If we were just doing one, the noble Viscount would have a point. This is part of our strategy to invest in support for parents, to invest in employment support, and to make sure that whole families benefit from our policies.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, the Minister said in a reply to an earlier question that, by giving support to these families, we are investing in the future. These children will grow up to be productive members of society, hopefully working and paying their taxes. Along with many in this House, I come from a family of immigrants and migrants and I am proud that many of my family members now have become businesspeople, teachers, and lawyers. Even Tracey Emin is a cousin. We have contributed to this country, paying back what the country gave to us. Does she agree with me that these comments that somehow we are wasting money by investing in children are an absolute disgrace?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure the House is every bit as proud of the noble Baroness as they are of Tracey Emin or any other eminent member of her family, whether they are a lawyer or a doctor, or whatever they may have done. But she makes a good point. We are investing in our children in this country because we want them to have happy, thriving childhoods, but also because, by doing that, we give them every chance of achieving what they can in life. That increases productivity and the wealth of this country. I say again that our job is to be balanced. The benefits system is here to support those for whom this is their home. Migrants have to tackle very high barriers to get them, but we should not be singling out individual children on the basis of where they were born. Let us get all kids out of poverty.
Child Poverty: Faith-based and Voluntary Sector Organisations
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to facilitate consultation and collaboration with faith-based and voluntary sector organisations to deliver the Our Children, Our Future: Tackling Child Poverty strategy, published on 5 December 2025.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are turning the tide on child poverty. This requires consensus, partnership and shared action. Government cannot achieve this goal alone. Input from children and families, charities, experts and organisations, including faith-based and voluntary sector organisations, was vital to developing our child poverty strategy. These organisations are the bedrock of our communities. We plan to continue to work in partnership, including with faith groups and voluntary sector organisations, to build on and galvanise action.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln
I thank the Minister for her Answer. I know she is deeply aware that faith communities play a vital role in supporting children and families. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby was grateful for her visit last year, and I look forward very much to her forthcoming visit to Grimsby. However, I am concerned that faith is not mentioned more prominently in the Government’s child poverty strategy—indeed, it is not referenced at all in chapter 2, “Reducing Child Poverty in Partnership”—so I ask the Minister to say more about how faith organisations will be vital to codelivery and how the Government intend to take further steps to draw on the local knowledge, experience and ongoing action of faith communities in order to implement their strategy and drive down child poverty.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for mentioning the visits: I had a fantastic visit to Derby, invited by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, meeting a range of faith organisations, and I very much look forward to coming to Grimsby with him. The Government are committed to harnessing the power of faith and belief for national renewal, and we know that the insights of faith communities play a key part in informing and shaping policies; they did so in relation to the child poverty strategy. That has not stopped with poverty. For example, the Minister for Employment has met with Church Action on Poverty, and the Minister for Social Security is going to speak at the ChurchWorks summit specifically on opportunities for collaboration around the child poverty strategy with faith organisations.
Whenever I visit a faith organisation, I learn something wonderful. I visited a brilliant Jewish charity a couple of weeks ago at the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Polak. I was so glad that I did, because I learned what was happening on the ground to support individuals facing a wide range of challenges in ways that the Government would struggle to engage with. So I reassure the right reverend Prelate that we cannot do without those insights, and we will make sure that we get them.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right to raise the role of faith-based organisations, but I wonder if the Minister is aware of the role of cultural organisations and cultural participation in reducing the impacts of child poverty. I think of personal and social networks, employability skills and self-confidence. To see this in action, will she take a look at Culture Start in Sunderland, which is developing a range of local partnerships with the specific aim of using cultural participation to ensure that all children, however they are born, have the option to benefit from the advantages that cultural participation brings?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for a great question. I agree with her point that the role of cultural organisations and the opportunity to participate and engage with others to do collective action in different ways are crucial to children’s development—and often those are the kinds of opportunities that children from wealthier families have that others would not. In response to the specifics, Sunderland being very near to Durham, I would be delighted to learn more about what is happening there. I need to go and find out. My office can take note.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply about how the charities will work, but what worries me is how small, local charities will be included in this. It rather looks as if we are encouraging the larger charities to do all the good work that they do but, as the other questioners said, there are a lot of local charities. I would like to know that they are going to be included in this process.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
That is a great question, if I may say so—there are some good questions coming out today. We absolutely are not interested in talking solely to large charities. We are interested in talking to them too, but we need to engage locally. As I am sure the noble Lord knows, one way that this Government are going about our work in the DWP is that we are devolving quite a lot. We are aware that much of the work we want to do can be done much better at a local level. For example, it is much clearer in Manchester than it is in London what should happen in Greater Manchester. So we are devolving and encouraging local organisations in many of the pilots that we are running to engage with local charities, but we will also often engage with organisations that themselves are umbrellas, which can bring together local charities to come and talk to us.
The noble Lord makes a really important point. Having worked in the voluntary sector myself for a long time, I know that there are some insights that national charities give that are really helpful, but other things you find out only when you go to the coalface. Just last week I visited a small charity in Fife that is doing amazing work, and I learned things from it that I would not have learned from the biggest charity. So that is a good point, and I take it on.
Lord Rees of Easton (Lab)
My Lords, when I was mayor of Bristol, we put tackling child poverty at the centre of our approach. We sought to deal with issues of real substance—evidence-based issues that determine the life chances of our children and young people: parental background, income, class, housing stability, family stability, education and health. Does the Minister agree that it is not helpful to set up frameworks that might invite people to believe that the life chances of British-born young people are determined by the fortunes of children born to foreign parents?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I commend my noble friend for the work that he did in Bristol, the leadership he showed and all the excellent work that was done there. I am absolutely clear that if we are to invest in the children of our country, we need to invest in all the children of our country, make sure that we reflect their needs and give them the opportunity to thrive within the context of all the things I said on the previous Question. I take the opportunity to say that I do not think these things can be done just by government. The examples he gave are a reason why Whitehall does not always know best. Trying to pull only the levers in my department will not give us the results we need. I absolutely welcome the opportunity to learn from what Bristol has done, and from what other metropolitan and mayoral authorities are doing and will carry on doing.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, parental employment, family stability and early intervention are key to reducing child poverty, but there are currently around 800,000 job vacancies in the UK. How exactly are the Government helping parents to get into work? We have jobs. The employees and employers want them to work together.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The noble Earl makes a really good point. That is what my department is for. One of the reasons why we are reinventing the whole way that jobcentres work is to be able to make sure that we can help these individuals get ready and take those jobs. We have real opportunity out there, but if we are to hit the kind of employment targets we want, we must give the people who are farthest from the labour market the chance to get at those jobs. We must tackle the barriers that stop people getting those jobs. In the case of parents, those barriers can be quite significant. If you are a single mum with two kids trying to afford childcare, to find work that fits around what you do and to get training and skills, then that is a challenge. Our work coaches can work with that mother, help her to get the skills she needs, to find childcare and to get help with that childcare, get her skilled up and get her out there. That shows the children what they can achieve in turn, and everybody benefits. He is absolutely right; this is the way forward.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it would make a helpful contribution to tackling child poverty if the Government were to lift the ban on asylum seekers taking paid work?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the Government must make an appropriate challenge. If somebody becomes a refugee, they have all the entitlements that that brings, but while the asylum process is going through they are supported and not able to work. We are trying to make sure the immigration policy is appropriate and puts in place the appropriate incentives and processes. I understand the point she makes, but the challenge in asylum is to make sure that only the right people apply, that we process them as quickly as possible, that we make the right decisions and that we then support people who become refugees to rebuild their lives.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, faith-based and voluntary sector organisations place great emphasis on listening to the voices of lived experience. I commend the child poverty team for having done so in developing the child poverty strategy. Can my noble friend tell us what the plans are for the next stage of involving people with lived experience of poverty in the implementation and monitoring of the strategy?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend makes a really important point. Any of us who met people with lived experience as part of this process have learned things that we will never forget. The most memorable one for me was when I met a young woman. When she was a child, her family was evicted from social housing. It was a very difficult experience. She was part of a project that used her experience to talk to decision-makers. She was asked to talk to the senior person at the social housing association that had evicted her. As a result of hearing her story, the housing association changed its policy on managing rent arrears. Instead of focusing just on how to evict people, it focused on how to spot problems early, to stop people getting into trouble, to protect the family and to enable them to carry on and thrive. That was such a great example, and every time our officials learn this they know that we are hearing things that we will carry on doing. The Timms review has been co-produced with people from disabled organisations, the universal credit review has had extensive engagements, and the child poverty unit in the DWP will carry on doing that too.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the Government deserve credit for developing a strategy to tackle child poverty, but does the Minister accept that there has to be a partnership between parents and the state? The state can carry out its responsibilities in tackling poverty, but parents must ensure that their children attend school regularly, with a real commitment to their education.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I could not agree more. The noble Lord makes an excellent point. I realise that, from his experience, he will have seen this from all sides. In the end, it is not the job of the state to raise children—parents raise their children. The job of the state is to support families to give them the skills and support they need to enable them to do the best job they can. I have worked with families in different circumstances. In my experience, parents want to do the best for their kids but sometimes life can be tough. Our job in government is to make it possible for them to be the best parents they can and give children the best possible start in life. That means going to school on a regular basis—no exceptions unless absolutely necessary—with children always turning up and doing their work, then things will be okay.
AI Superintelligence
Baroness Berger
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of when AI superintelligence which can surpass human capabilities will be developed; and the potential impact of that AI on the United Kingdom.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, there is considerable debate around AI superintelligence. Some experts believe that AI could exceed human capabilities by 2030, which would significantly impact the UK’s economy and national security. The AI Security Institute helps the Government assess serious AI risks, equipping it to understand them. That will help us reap the benefits of AI such as economic growth and public sector efficiency. Our AI Opportunities Action Plan lays the foundation for national renewal, and I am pleased to inform noble Lords that in the past 12 months we have achieved 38 out of our 50 commitments in the plan.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for indicating that superintelligent AI is expected to emerge over the course of the next couple of years. It was the head of the IMF who said at Davos last week that this is moving so fast, yet we do not know how to make it safe. We rightly regulate many industries in this country, including medical research and weapons manufacturing. Like those technologies, AI should have independent pre- and post-deployment testing. Leading AI companies have repeatedly made safety pledges they have then failed to keep. When will the Government bring in regulation for these powerful emerging technologies?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, the Government recognise both the pace of AI development and the need to ensure that it is safe and inclusive. We have set out the proportionate, principal SPACE framework, enforced by existing regulations, to ensure safety, transparency and accountability. We are also working with international partners to prevent fragmentation. We will legislate where necessary, but we will do so carefully, ensuring that legislation is effective and inclusive, without stifling innovation and keeping the United Kingdom globally competitive.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a consultant for DLA Piper on AI regulation and policy. In the debate on AI last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd of Effra, mentioned the Council of Europe framework convention on AI. She rightly said that it is seeking
“to establish a clear international baseline that grounds AI in our shared values”.—[Official Report, 29/1/26; col. 1129.]
Fine words, my Lords. The framework convention would set binding duties on the UK to ensure that AI is compatible with human rights, democracy and the rule of law, plus some more specific obligations on risk management, transparency, accountability and remedies. When will the UK ratify it, and what plans is it making to implement it?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, AI risks do not respect national borders and require sustained international leadership. I am pleased that the United Kingdom remains at the forefront, convening global partners to build shared understanding of frontier risks and mitigation. We work with the G7, the G20, the OECD, the United Nations and the Council of Europe. Through multilateral forums and bilateral partnerships, we are championing international safety standards and promoting transparency. Our approach ensures that global governance is rooted in democratic values and human rights, fostering a secure, responsible environment in which innovation can flourish safely across all territories.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
My Lords, the second International AI Safety Report is being published today. It is a scientific assessment, guided by 100 experts from 30 different countries and chaired by Yoshua Bengio, one of the three so-called godfathers of AI. A key finding is that general-purpose AI capabilities are improving more quickly than anticipated. Does the Minister agree that it is now time for DSIT to set up a commission or working group of experts, convened jointly by the AI Security Institute and the Alan Turing Institute, to investigate the potential impact of this increasing rate of progress towards general-purpose superintelligent AI?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are taking a proactive, evidence-led approach to the potential emergence of advanced AI. We have empowered the AI Security Institute, the world’s first state-backed body of its kind, to carry out onerous testing of frontier models against clear red lines, including autonomous self-replication and deception. In the last couple of months, the AI Security Institute has conducted more than 30 such tests, and will be working with partners to ensure that AI is safe for the general public.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I have always welcomed the approach the Government have taken to regulation in the AI space, particularly a proportionate approach, considering where we are in the development of AI businesses and technologies—in a global battle. With regard to artificial general intelligence—the singularity—it must be stated that most experts predict this to happen between 2040 and 2045, if at all. But right here, right now, the UK is in a global battle, particularly the SMEs that are developing businesses in AI here, creating jobs and investing. I appreciate that it has now been a year since the Government produced their AI opportunities action plan, but can the Minister please advise the House what has been done to help the UK AI SME industry to win government contracts? The concern I hear—I declare an interest as a co-founder of the Business AI Alliance, with over 200 UK AI SME members—is that these companies cannot get the contracts the Government are putting out.
Lord Leong (Lab)
First, the noble Lord is absolutely right to highlight this issue. I really welcome his continued engagement on this. Small and medium-sized enterprises are vital to AI-driven growth. The Government are supporting SMEs through a whole series of targeted innovation funding, access to test bids—which is available now—and digital adoption programmes, alongside partnerships with research institutions. By lowering barriers to experimentation, we enable smaller firms to enhance productivity and compete more effectively. This ensures that the economic benefits of AI are shared across the country, fostering a diverse and resilient digital economy throughout the United Kingdom.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, building on the work that my noble friend the Minister has outlined, and considering that AI is changing the world of work and that superintelligence poses an even greater threat to the UK job market, can my noble friend outline what the Government are doing to reassure workers who are worried about the future of their jobs?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right, and this Government will not be a bystander as people worry about what AI means for their jobs and their children’s prospects. AI will create new jobs but it will also change work and, regrettably, will replace some jobs. Change is inevitable. The consequences are not. We will support people throughout this transition by investing in skills and growth, including by establishing the new AI and the Future of Work Unit within DSIT, working with DWP and DBT, to co-ordinate action across government—although I note that however advanced these machines become, they are not yet standing at this Dispatch Box.
Lord Markham (Con)
Not yet anyway. Just this week we saw Elon Musk forecast an AI world of abundance, where robots outnumber people and people work only a few hours a week—I am wondering where I sign up for that. Who knows whether he is right or wrong but undoubtedly there will be winners and losers. We all agree that we want the UK to be one of the leaders rather than followers. What that says to me is that we really need our best minds putting together our own Elon Musk-type forecast so that we can shape it and respond accordingly. Are we doing this and, if so, when will we see it?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Lord is aware that the Government are spending £2 billion on supporting all AI-related projects. We are investing £500 million in our Sovereign AI Unit, supporting UK businesses to compete internationally. The noble Lord is absolutely right: the world is changing and we have to be at the forefront by making sure that our people have the skills. More importantly, if we want AI to work for Britain, we need Britons who can work with AI.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, the California AI Transparency Act has set up a mechanism for developers of large language frontier models to publish a report on a model’s intended uses and an assessment of catastrophic risks before it is released. Is that a requirement that His Majesty’s Government might consider introducing in this country?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Lord is right to highlight that issue. We are doing a lot already, but we must do more. As I said, we are investing in establishing our Sovereign AI Unit, we will equip some 10 million people with AI skills by 2030, and we will go further by supporting our SMEs to grow the AI market in this country.
Shamima Begum
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
Shamima Begum had her British citizenship removed, as upheld by the UK courts. It is inappropriate for me to comment further while there are further ongoing legal proceedings. We are working closely with partners to understand the current situation in the detention facilities and camps, and to mitigate any shared national security risks.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
Does my noble friend agree that the situation in northern Syria has become more dangerous recently, especially for those being held in detention camps? Notwithstanding the sub judice position referred to by my noble friend, would it not be right for Shamima Begum, a British-born person educated and brought up here and probably trafficked to Syria as a 15 year-old, to be allowed to return and face justice? Or do the Government seriously believe that she should stay in a prison camp indefinitely?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
On the first part of my noble friend’s question, the Government are obviously deeply concerned about developments in north-east Syria. However, we welcome the agreement between the Syrian Government and the Syrian Democratic Forces to integrate military and civilian institutions, and we will continue to monitor what happens in northern Syria. Regarding Shamima Begum, my noble friend knows that I try to be helpful on these matters. However, I cannot be any more helpful than I was last time, which is to say that a process has been followed and there is further discussion in the European courts. I cannot anticipate or comment upon that matter until such time as those issues are resolved.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We have plenty of time. We will hear from the Cross Benches first and then from the noble Viscount.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I declare an interest as a former legal counsel of Shamima Begum—there are many of us in that position. The Minister has repeatedly stated that the existence of legal proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights prevents him answering detailed questions. I am aware of no doctrine of the European court that imposes such a restriction. Why are the Government hiding behind the European court’s proceedings to avoid answering the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
With due respect to the noble Lord, I am not hiding behind that. We have taken a judgment that we are in discussion on that matter in the European court with legal teams. I am not able to give a running commentary on those matters in this House. The noble Lord may not like that, but that is the position I have to give the House today.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I re-emphasise that when Shamima Begum went to Syria, she was 15 years-old. She absconded from school. She was a child. What is the public interest in excluding her from the United Kingdom now? Are we just making political gestures? I of course acknowledge that the original decision was made by the previous Administration.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The original decision was made by the previous Administration, and it happens to be one that this Government upheld and support. I say again to the House that there are ongoing proceedings about her status, and the decisions were very clear. Under legislation which the previous Government took, we have examined this matter and are now in discussions in the European Court of Human Rights. I think it is best left to be determined in the way in which it will ultimately be determined.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I have said it before and I will say it again: we on these Benches are unequivocal in our view that Shamima Begum should never be allowed to return to Britain. However, the noble Lord is right to note the increase in fighting in northern Syria. One of the issues this raises is that British-born Islamic State fighters and sympathisers may be freed and then attempt to make the journey back to Britain, potentially by small boat crossings. In the interests of the security of the British people, what are the Government doing to ensure that no one who has fought for or assisted a terrorist group in that region is able to return to Britain?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very valid point, and it is one that I support. The Foreign Secretary has already spoken to the Syrian Foreign Minister about the situation of those who have been and are being detained. We want to ensure that we continue to monitor the security situation in northern Syria, but the noble Lord makes a very valid point that the Government will bear in mind.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, the Independent Commission on UK Counter-Terrorism Law, Policy and Practice has recommended that the UK adopt a comprehensive repatriation policy for all British nationals detained in north-east Syria. None of the 50 to 60 British nationals—the majority of whom are children and their mothers—detained in the dangerous and deteriorating situation in north-east Syria have been charged with a crime, and they have been held there for roughly six years. If transferred to Iraq, which is now a real threat, they face an acute risk of torture, unfair trials and suffering for the children if they are separated from their mothers. Will the Government now fulfil their responsibility and do what the United States, France and Germany have already done: repatriate these British nationals?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
All requests for consular assistance and, indeed, repatriation will be taken into account by the Government. The British Government will particularly look at the issue of unaccompanied minors and orphans when brought to our attention, and we will facilitate their return, where feasible, on a case-by-case basis, subject to the national security issues and concerns that have been raised to date. I recognise that there are no consular assistance facilities in northern Syria, but there are ways in which that can be examined, and if cases are brought to the Government’s attention, we will look at them.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, the Government keep citing vague evidence that Shamima Begum is a threat to national security. When the Government are able to, will they put that evidence before an independent inquiry so that it can be scrutinised, and we can be assured that the rule of law is being followed properly and she is not being used as a political football?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I can assure the noble Baroness that the individual is not being used as a political football. The previous Government took the decision under the British Nationality Act 1981 to deprive her of her citizenship status. It is not a step that is taken lightly; it is taken only after careful consideration of advice by lawyers and in conjunction with international law. We have examined the decision to date and upheld it. There is a court case, and the Government judge that we are not going to comment on that while it is going on, but the noble Baroness’s points have been heard in this House, and we will obviously examine them.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, regardless of the particular case and the ongoing proceedings my noble friend the Minister describes, what does he think of the broader policy conundrum that if developed democracies take citizenship away from subjects and citizens who are perceived to be dangerous, we render large numbers of people stateless and create a powder keg of resentment, fomenting all sorts of challenges that will make us less, not more safe?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I come back to the point, which my noble friend will be aware of, that this is not a decision taken lightly or very often. The previous Government issued 10 citizenship deprivations in 2020, eight in 2021, three in 2022, two in 2023 and only one in 2024. When the decision is taken, it is on the basis of advice, and that no one is left stateless in doing so.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, further to the question asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, she was indeed 15 when she went out to Syria originally, but she is now 26 and able to show maturity, one would expect—but unfortunately, she has shown very little contrition or regret. While I am sympathetic to her, would it not be better if she actually condemned atrocities committed by ISIS, rather than saluting and applauding them, which she has done in recent interviews?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, with due respect to the noble Lord, I am not going to comment on individual cases, which the Government are currently actively considering, in terms of both the original decision and the court case to date. The noble Lord has said what he said and the House will have heard it; I cannot comment on it.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, the United States has begun the transfer of 7,000 Islamic State detainees from prisons in north-east Syria to Iraq. Iraq’s Supreme Judicial Council said the other day that it would commence legal proceedings against transferred detainees of whatever nationality. Can the Minister tell the House whether any British detainees are among those 7,000, and what, if anything, can be done to guard against the risk that in Iraq, those detainees will suffer torture, unfair trials and the death penalty?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord will know that the issue he has raised is a US and Iraq-led operation. The UK is not involved in that operation. We expect all detainee transfers to meet international legal standards and will continue to monitor developments very closely. Again, I cannot comment on any individual cases in relation to the issue the noble Lord raises.
House of Lords Commission
The Senior Deputy Speaker
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, I place on record my gratitude to the noble Lords, Lord McFall of Alcluith and Lord Stoneham of Droxford, whose terms as Lord Speaker and Liberal Democrat Chief Whip have concluded. As such, they will be coming off their respective committees, and I am very grateful for their significant contributions. With the approval of your Lordships, the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Goddard of Stockport, will be appointed as their successors to the relevant committees.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the draft Order laid before the House on 16 December 2025 be approved.
Relevant document: 47th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 28 January.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:10 - Division on Amendment 199 - Ayes: 295 / Noes: 180 - Amendment 199 agreed.
Baroness Barran
“Reasonableness and safeguards in the exercise of local authority powers(1) In exercising powers under sections 54 to 56, a local authority must act reasonably and proportionately, having regard to—(a) the needs of the child,(b) the needs of other pupils at the school, and(c) the capacity of the school to meet the child’s needs safely and effectively.(2) An Academy may, within 10 school days of receiving a direction or proposed direction under sections 54 to 56, notify the local authority and the Secretary of State that it considers the direction to be unreasonable on one or more of the following grounds—(a) that the Academy cannot reasonably be expected, with the resources and specialist expertise available to it, to meet the child’s special educational needs or other significant additional needs;(b) that admitting the child would seriously prejudice the education or welfare of existing pupils or the safety of pupils or staff;(c) that suitable and reasonably accessible alternative provision is available which is better able to meet the child’s needs;(d) that the direction is otherwise irrational or disproportionate.(3) Where notice is given under subsection (2), the direction shall not take effect until—(a) the Secretary of State has confirmed, varied or set aside the direction, or(b) such other independent review body as may be prescribed by regulations has determined the matter.(4) Before confirming or varying a direction under subsection (3), the Secretary of State (or other prescribed body) must—(a) give the Academy proprietor and the local authority an opportunity to make written representations, and(b) have regard to any relevant code of practice or statutory guidance.(5) In this section “Academy” has the same meaning as in this Act.(6) In exercising functions under this section, the Secretary of State (or other prescribed body) must have particular regard to the importance of securing fair access for looked-after children, previously looked-after children, children who have been excluded from a previous school and children with an education, health and care plan.(7) 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 new clause provides safeguards for Academies where a local authority uses its powers under clauses 54 to 56 to direct an Academy to admit a particular child.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, this group contains some important amendments, including my Amendments 198 and 199.
Amendment 198 deals with the duty to co-operate that all schools are required to respect, which I raised in Committee. I questioned whether there really was a problem that needed solving—namely, that academies were routinely refusing to accept either children who had been permanently excluded from another school or looked-after children. The Minister responded in November; I am grateful to her officials for preparing the data for me. It showed that, across the whole of England, there were tiny numbers of cases where local authorities requested that the Secretary of State should direct the admission of a child. In only 24 cases last year, 28 the year before and 26 the year before that did the Secretary of State use those powers. That was for about half of the requests made. With 8.8 million children in this country, over half of them educated in academies, to be arguing about 25 children a year seems extraordinary.
The Government made the case that this would reduce delays, with the department taking 38 days to respond, but surely a much simpler approach would be for it to speed up its processes. Currently, the time taken to respond in similar cases with maintained schools is between 28 and 35 days, if one takes into account the time that the maintained school has to file an objection and the time for the schools adjudicator to respond. We are dancing on the heads of two microscopic pins, around time and the number of children, when all it would take is for the department to decide tomorrow to cut the time it takes to make these decisions.
More broadly, my Amendment 198 aims to pick up on points made in Committee by my noble friends Lord Agnew and Lady Spielman and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley. We all accept the principles that underpin the duty to co-operate and the need for all schools to do so. However, as my noble friend Lady Spielman pointed out in Committee, there are cases where a school may not have the skills or capacity to address the needs of a certain child or children, particularly at a time when the system for children with SEND is under strain and mainstream schools are expected to accept pupils whose needs are severe and who would previously have attended a special school.
In Committee, the Minister pointed out that local authorities must ensure that decisions are made in the child’s best interests. My amendment would put in a balanced consideration of the child’s needs, the needs of other pupils and the capacity of the school to meet those needs. I wish—it is a faint wish at this late stage—that the Government would withdraw this unnecessary clause, but if they will not do so then perhaps they will accept my amendment. If the Minister will not accept it, can she explicitly set out in summing up how these very reasonable concerns which balance the rights of different groups of children will be addressed?
My Amendment 199 aims to prevent the schools adjudicator from requiring high-performing schools to reduce their PAN, or published admission numbers. There is a practical problem in some areas of falling pupil numbers—a projected drop of about 300,000 primary pupils by 2030, and 97,000 fewer secondary pupils—and this in turn is putting financial pressure on some schools. But the way to sort this out is not by requiring the most popular, highest-performing schools in an area to cut their PAN. It pays no regard to the interests of children nor to the rights of parents to choose a high-performing school for their child.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 201 in my name, which deals with the issue of faith-based selection in school admissions. This speaks to the missing data that the Schools Minister raised in Committee in the other place. The Department for Education currently does not collect data on how admissions policies are applied in schools and therefore does not know how many parents are missing out on a place at their preferred school because of their religion or because they do not have a religion. Collecting data would shed light on what the impact of faith-selective admissions is for parents and pupils, and on whether such selection is contributing to or undermining parental choice. This is not an argument against faith schools; many provide an excellent education and are deeply rooted in their communities. Rather, the purpose of Amendment 201 is to promote fairness and genuine parental choice by limiting the extent to which oversubscription criteria can be used to select pupils on the basis of religion.
In Committee, the Government pointed to the existing admissions framework, by which admissions must be published and applied consistently. But the question is not simply whether rules exist on paper but what those rules do in practice when a school is oversubscribed. If admissions turn on faith tests that some families cannot meet, because they are either of a different faith or of no faith, then, in reality, the local school is not equally accessible to the local community.
There is also the wider issue of inclusion and cohesion. Selection by faith risks narrowing pupil diversity and, over time, separating children along religious and, sometimes, ethnic lines during their formative years. Evidence suggests that faith-based selection can correlate with lower inclusion. The Sutton Trust has found that faith schools are more socially selective, admitting fewer pupils eligible for free school meals than would be expected given their local status. Research highlighted by the London School of Economics has reported the underadmission of children with special educational needs and disabilities to faith primary schools. The Office of the Schools Adjudicator has reported concerns from local authorities that faith-based criteria can in some cases disadvantage looked-after and previously looked-after children.
The aim here is straightforward: to ensure that publicly funded schools serve their whole community and that parental choice is not narrowed by criteria unrelated to a child’s needs or a family’s proximity to the school. Amendment 201 is a measured step that would support fairness in admissions and help ensure that our children are brought together rather than separated. Amendment 201 promotes fairness and parental choice in schools’ admissions policy, and I commend it to the House.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 199, to which I have added my name. In this, I am channelling my inner Baroness Wolf of Dulwich—the noble Baroness sends her apologies that she cannot be in her place. This amendment attempts to rectify another example in the Bill in which a well-intentioned idea is turning out to be a mistake. It is a bit of an example of top-down government seemingly punishing a school for being successful. Whereas education is all about nurturing and helping improvement in those who are less successful, this is a cold logic to reduce empty places and surplus capacity.
In an ideal world, the number of children wanting to go to various local schools would fit neatly into the number of places in local schools, but it does not. That is, in part, because parents are now much more aware of the league tables, Ofsted inspections, academy specialisations and all sorts of online opinions. It also reduces the most important incentive for a school to succeed and improve—one that has been at the heart of Labour’s and successive Governments’ academies programme, which has itself been at the heart of 20 years of school improvement, and which threatens to be reversed by this.
If good and oversubscribed schools can expand, and unpopular schools are not filled up with unwilling attendees, all schools would have a strong incentive to be good. When school choice and academisation were introduced, there were predictions that we would end up with lots of sink schools and a significant number of children having an even worse education than before recruitment was freed up. This did not happen. There has been a steady decrease in the number of badly performing schools. Competition works, not by creating a monopoly but by incentivising and driving improvement.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, my Amendment 230 in this group is on off-rolling. Whatever the good points of academisation, there has been a strong suspicion—a fact, in some cases—that certain schools are off-rolling pupils who are seen to be a problem. The best of the academies are probably dealing with this. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, being impassioned as a Minister in saying that we must stop this. There is a strong suspicion that it goes on, possibly underneath, at a school level, when a teacher or headmaster is worried about personal development. Whether we like it or not, that strong suspicion exists, and there has been a rise in the number of exclusions going on.
When the Minister answers, I hope that she will tell us how this is being dealt with. If it is not being dealt with, it is a problem that we will have to get to grips with. I hope that there will be a coherent look at this, so we know exactly what the case is. There is a strong suspicion that special educational needs is a factor pushing this. I have known people going through this, where it has been assumed that every pupil in a pupil referral unit has at least one special educational need. The Minister has been engaged in these types of areas, and I hope that, when she comes to answer for the Government, she can tell us what the Government are going to do. If there is even a suspicion, we should find out the truth and look at it coherently.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, I will talk to Amendments 198 and 199, to which I have added my name. Inclusion is very important but, at the moment, some children—too many, frankly—who should not be in maintained education are being admitted to maintained schools because of their parents’ wishes. Those parents are making decisions that are not in the best interests of their children. These are often inappropriate settings and it affects the education and resources available to other children in those settings. We need more special schools that are better located, so that children are not spending hours in taxis, and we need better alternative provision. I very much hope that the Government are seized of this issue and that they will allow more special and AP free schools.
On Amendment 199, I find it hard to think of circumstances where it would be a good idea to limit the size of a school that provides high-quality education. I can, however, think of many examples of where it would be a very bad idea. As my noble friend Lady Barran said, we are heading towards overcapacity in schools, and the best way for that situation to resolve itself is by letting the market and parents decide.
Local authorities are understandably reluctant to close schools and there are often many local, political or ward issues in play. We certainly do not want local authorities to reduce the PAN of schools on the basis of political issues overriding the interests of children or parents. I am aware of boroughs that have tried to resist the creation of new free schools based on a lack of demand in their location when, on further investigation, it became clear that many local pupils were actually going to schools in neighbouring boroughs or local authorities, because their local schools were performing so poorly. It is a complicated issue.
My academy trust specialises in taking on failing schools. We have just taken on another secondary school, thanks to terrific co-operation from the Department for Education and a certain amount of money, for which I am very grateful. This is another failing secondary school in Hertfordshire, with only 400 pupils on the roll but with a much higher PAN and substantial local demand. The school had previously had three required improvements in 15 years. As we have taken on a further four failing schools in Hertfordshire and turned them around, and have a very good relationship with the Hertfordshire local authority, I do not think this would be an issue in this location. But if we were in the future asked to take on a similarly failing school in an authority we did not know, the ability of the local authority to reduce the PAN might well deter us, and no doubt others. Reducing the PAN of a successful school to protect a school whose roll is falling is no answer. Students do best in schools which are full or nearly full, and have the resources to provide an adequate education.
Finally, in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, while I do not think off-rolling is as frequent as perhaps some people think, it would be better to know the answer and get the facts.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I will make a few comments on this group of amendments. On Amendment 230, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I have great sympathy with what he says, and I hope that it may be an issue that the Minister will address when the SEND reform plans are presented in due course.
I understand the intention behind Amendment 198 and have a lot of sympathy with it. I can think of lots of schools that have been put in quite difficult positions and lots of children who have not had a good deal having being allocated to a particular school. The problem here—something that was not addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran—is that, on the whole, schools are not queuing up to take the most challenging children. They might want to do their best by them and believe that that is their job, but, with the accountability mechanisms the way they are, it tilts the balance away from schools taking children who offer particular challenges.
If you put in legislation a whole set of reasons to say no to a given child, that does not make the child or the family feel very good, and you would have to work hard to make sure that it was for a valid reason and not an invalid reason. My approach would sooner be that you put support in and make the SEND system work. I am an optimist. I do not think we have to give protection to some schools from taking challenging children. I think we have got it in us to adjust the policy framework, go in there and help them succeed. That would be serving every child and not discriminating against them.
My main comments relate to Amendment 199. We semi-rehearsed this in Committee, so I will not go over that again. I would never support a situation where a school that was unlikely to succeed had more children allocated to it at the expense of a school that was doing well. If that was the only decision, I would probably end up supporting the amendment, but it is much more complicated than that.
There is a bit of a conundrum at the heart of this, and it goes to what the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, said. I agree with parental choice but I do not agree with the market in schools, and there is a difference between the two. Parental choice is right and good and desirable, and we should write the law to facilitate it whenever we can. In a market, however, you do not intervene; you let things fail. They wither away on the vine, and that takes time, and then they fail and then close, and that leaves a gap. Look at the high streets in some of our small towns and cities—we cannot have that for schools. We cannot have a schools policy that has in it an acceptance that some schools will wither on the vine and fail. It is not good for the children who are there. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, when she was a Minister, and her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, would have gone into such schools to intervene and try to make them improve. That is why I have never used the term “market” in relation to schools: parental choice yes, but market, no. Somehow, that is at the core of my concerns about this amendment.
There are two issues. If it was about not wanting to go to the surplus places, I would agree with the noble Baroness. If there are more children, let us try to put them in the schools that are flourishing. But if it is a situation where the number of students on a roll in a given geographical area is falling, something has to happen. If you can merge them together, that is great, but you can get the difficult situation where you have to do something else. That is where I would manage parental choice and whatever market there is. I worry that if we say that their numbers cannot fall but their numbers can fall, all we do is make it more difficult for every school to thrive and succeed.
A school that is just turning that corner, as the noble Baroness on the Opposition Front Bench described, that has been taken over by a good academy, got itself a new head and perhaps has a new housing estate nearby is on its way. It would fall under this because it does not have a good Ofsted inspection or anything like that.
If we look at Camden, 96% to 100% of schools are good or outstanding. I do not know, but I suspect that Camden is going to have falling rolls at some point because it is a London borough. This would give protection to every school in Camden because none of them is failing. Most of them are maintained schools, not academies, but it does not matter as they are all doing a good job. This clause would not work there. The way that schools would read this is that there is now a law that if it has had a good inspection in the last three years, it is protected. If you tried to enact proposed new subsection (5D)(a) and (b), there would be an almighty row because schools would have been given protection by this clause.
I would sooner play to our optimism. Where schools really cannot succeed, let them go and manage a good education for the pupils, but in cases of falling rolls we have to do everything we can to plan appropriately across a geographical area to make sure that we give every school the best possible chance of doing well.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and largely to agree, although I would go somewhat further and say that I think we have reached the situation of a market in schools in which very crude judgments are being applied by Ofsted, and schools are being pushed to game the system. That is why I signed Amendment 230 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and why the Green group will oppose Amendment 199 should it come to a vote.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, was charitable when he said that there is a strong suspicion that off-rolling is going on. I am afraid I have no doubt that off-rolling is going on because up and down England, particularly in some of the most deprived communities, I have spoken to parents, often parents from very disadvantaged backgrounds themselves, who have said, “I’m trying to home-school my child now because the head teacher said they thought that was the best thing that could happen”. That was not home schooling by choice. That was usually pupils with special educational needs that the school just did not want to deal with. I have some sympathy with head teachers. Having been a school governor, I know how much pressure head teachers are under to keep up with the results. The problem is that we have created a competitive system where schools compete against each other instead of working together to create the best result for every pupil.
Amendment 230 is very modest. It simply calls for a review. I can tell my anecdotal stories, but I cannot say how big the problem is. I have seen it in many places, and I am sure that it is quite widespread. I do not believe the noble Lord intends to put this to a vote, but surely we can ask the Government to look at this anyway. As other noble Lords have said, it is something we should know about because this is one way in which we are failing some of our most disadvantaged pupils. Amendment 199, if it were to be passed, just furthers that sense of competition, which is the last thing we need in our schooling system.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 198 and will touch on Amendment 230 from the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Listening to noble Lords around the House, I find it surprising that they consistently believe that inspection, for which I was responsible for seven years, does not place a heavy emphasis on inclusion. Certainly throughout my time it did. The current framework has increased that focus almost to the point of giving up on looking at education, for which one learning walk and the results are about the extent of the coverage. Inclusion is and has long been taken extraordinarily seriously.
There are two issues that I want to touch on. The first is that however much we might want to believe that every child’s special needs can be coped with, there are times when those special needs consist of problems that inflict real harm on other children. The most awful parental complaints that came across my desk were about children who had been seriously assaulted and harmed, on occasion raped, by another child who had been admitted by a school either conscientiously trying to include a child for whom the local authority was desperate to find a place or that had been directed to take a child. That is agonising to learn about. We have to acknowledge that the interests of other children need to be considered when placing the most difficult children. That is important for children most of all but, of course, it is important for staff as well. If people are trying to work outside their capacity, schools tend to deteriorate, and that is not good for anybody.
Linked to that, I want to make a point about off-rolling, which has been touched on. In my time we put more of an emphasis on looking for signs and pursuing that—inquiring into it—where we found it. One of the things we discovered is that it is extraordinarily hard to characterise definitively whether an individual case is a case of off-rolling. There is typically quite a long history, a deterioration of the relationship between the child and the school. It is not a clean and tidy yes or no. Getting to a point where you could definitively say what the extent was would be extremely labour-intensive. The issue, in my view, is not a lack of regulation to prevent this—inspection is perfectly capable of disincentivising it—but we have to acknowledge that it needs a lot of resource that simply does not exist in Ofsted or anywhere else to dig into individual cases and establish the extent and the remedies.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I will speak on Amendments 198, 199 and 230. I will give some historical background. The word “education” is derived from two Latin root words. The first is “educare”, which means to impart knowledge. For too long, some schools have seen themselves as imparting knowledge. They have emphasised too much that first root of the word, “educare”.
The other Latin root word is “educere”, which means to draw out knowledge. The best schools often do both. They impart knowledge but they also realise that a person is not a blank sheet of paper on whom you simply impart knowledge and do not draw out the best that is in them. In most schools that do both, the pupils all thrive.
That being the case, I think we have gone through a short-term revolution. Her Majesty’s inspectors, as they were then, saw themselves as helping the school to do better. Then Ofsted arrived and seemed to give simple judgments on the school, sometimes on very narrow elements. If the school failed one of its elements, it was totally judged to be a failing school.
I declare an interest here. The Archbishop Thurstan School in Hull had been there for many centuries. It was not performing as it should be and, therefore, there was a decision by the Secretary of State that it should be rebuilt. The council agreed to have it rebuilt and that it should be given a name that would be canvassed for in Hull. To my surprise, the pupils, staff and council decided that it should be called the Archbishop Sentamu Academy. That was the beginning of academisation.
We were very fortunate that the Labour Government, who lost the election in 2010, had agreed to provide the money. I was told by John Prescott, “Be quick, make sure that you get this money, because the new Government may not want this to happen”. Anyway, we got the £45 million and the place was rebuilt; the place was thriving. Students in Hull were thriving and doing excellent work for the first time, going to university for the first time. Four of them went to the University of Liverpool to read maths, which had never been dreamed of.
So the school was doing well but, as it went on, there was a problem in one of the departments and there was an Ofsted inspection, which said, “The school has failed”. If a school fails, the schools commissioner has a job to do: the school has to be brokered and brought into a much larger group, and that is what happened. What shocked me was that Ofsted would not then visit that school for three years. I said, “As a parent, if I had a child in that school and you judged it to be failing, I would like to know whether it had improved by the following year”.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak against Amendment 199, and I am following the very wise words of my noble friend Lady Morris in doing so. I just do not understand how this amendment would allow the management of school places and the good use of taxpayers’ money. Year 7 places in the capital, London, are expected to fall by 7.6% in the next five years and reception places by 6.4% in the next four years. That means that those schools will see altogether about a £45 million cut in their budget. That cannot just be left to chance.
There needs to be a way of managing the school population, ensuring that taxpayers’ money is well spent and that children are placed in schools that are viable and have enough pupils that they can be offered a full curriculum. We do not want the situation in Northern Ireland, where the grammar schools fill up and the secondary modern schools are left with completely variable roles year on year and are unable to offer a full curriculum or to give the children in Northern Ireland who most need it the education they deserve.
Amendment 199 would take market forces to a ridiculous level and would mean that the Government and the local area could not manage school places to ensure a broad and balanced curriculum for each child. That would be particularly the case with the new curriculum, which will be broader and more balanced and is long overdue. It is important to reject Amendment 199 because there needs to be a mechanism for the most vulnerable children.
I am afraid I have to disagree with the former chief inspector. Everyone knows there are certain schools that do not take the children with special educational needs that they should, and that other schools are then dumped on since they have to take far too many children with profound special needs, to the real detriment of those children and other pupils in the class. Everyone knows that in reality, that happens. The noble Lord, Lord Nash, is nodding—it is true.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
Can the noble Baroness say at what point I said that there were schools which did not take children? I do not think I did.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
If that was the case, let me apologise for saying that. They have got better at inclusion, and the noble Baroness is quite right to upbraid me on that.
However, it is really important that there is a power to direct schools to take pupils in order that they get an education. Secondly, we need a way of organising an admissions system which allows all children within the locality to have a viable education with a full, broad and balanced curriculum.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, some of the points the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, makes are important to consider. But let me remind the House that, over the years, Governments of various political persuasions have said how important it is that there is parental choice. They have encouraged parents to look at a school’s results, to read its prospectus, and to visit the school. Sometimes it is done by word of mouth. Sometimes those parents even look at how the children behave at the bus stop while they are waiting to go home of an evening.
I guarantee that nearly every single person sitting in this Chamber wanted the best possible school for their child. There were Members of different political parties who espoused strong views on this issue but, when it came to their own children, they often chose a school which was not in the local catchment area or was not the school the child was subscribed to go to. In some cases, they chose an independent or private school. The body politic has encouraged the notion of parental choice. We know that, as pupil numbers rise, this puts all sorts of pressures on schools and becomes very hard to deliver in all sorts of ways.
I am sorry to go on about Liverpool, but it is my home city and I learn lessons from it. I remember in the late 1960s and the 1970s, the then council decided to build two brand new state-of-the-art comprehensives: Paddington, in the inner city, and Netherley, in the north. They were built as 12-form entry schools. They had fantastic facilities: drama, you name it. The parents preferred the small secondary schools with three-form and four-form entry. Various Secretaries of State wrestled with this problem as the numbers dropped and dropped. I remember going to see Shirley Williams, then Secretary of State for Education, and saying, “Look, Paddington comprehensive is now only a two-form entry school. Why not make it into a tertiary college?” She said no, and I used to tease her about that decision. This is not an easy thing to do. We know that primary numbers are declining—the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, gave the figures. In Liverpool, we can already see that even so-called popular primary schools have spare capacity.
How do we sort this problem out? The answer is not to try to be the professor of admission numbers, chopping numbers off here and adding them there. Sadly, we have to do what we promised parents: we have to let them decide. The answer is not to say that we are going to make a particular school survive—as in the case of Paddington—by reducing the form entry, or, in some cases, closing a school so that children have to go to another particular school. That is not the answer at all.
I hate to say this—I never thought I would say this in my political career—but I think we have to let educational market forces take their course. If we believe in, and have promised parents, parental choice, we have to allow that. To say that we should cut the form entry—the PAN—of so-called popular schools is not the solution. Actually, there are academies that are not popular. Let us not think that all academy schools are going to gain from this. I know several academies—I will not name them—where numbers have dropped dramatically. Again, that is because of parental choice, and that is probably the right thing. So when it comes to this amendment, I will have to hold my nose but I think it is probably the right thing to do.
On Amendment 198, the noble Baroness, Lady Morris—as always—said what we on these Benches think. I say to my noble friend Lord Addington that I have never understood off-rolling. I can see children being taken off roll because their parents want to move or want to take them out of the school. I can see off-rolling when a pupil is permanently excluded from school. I can see off-rolling where a child has special educational needs which cannot be met at the school. But I cannot understand how schools were allowed to off-roll pupils for no particular reason at all. There are examples of where parents were given advice by schools which was not the right way to progress. I just think that off-rolling should not happen at all. In fact, I said to my noble friend Lord Addington, “Why do we need to review the practice? Isn’t the practice just not allowed, and we move on?” I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I just want to respond briefly to a couple of the remarks that were made about the amendments in my name. In relation to Amendment 198, I thank my noble friend Lord Nash for adding his name but also for making the case that we need more special schools and more alternative provision. I hope the Minister will have something to say on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, said—I wrote it down—that we were giving schools reasons not to take a child. But the reason is the other children in the classroom. I was not trying to suggest that that is easy. I am just saying that there is one child who needs the right place, and we should do everything we can to make that happen, but there are 29 other children who also need to learn and to be able to study safely.
I turn to Amendment 199. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, put it well when he said that it feels like we are punishing successful schools. That is the worry. Again, going back to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, the new school that is improving is exactly the example that would be allowed to continue to grow. I think perhaps she misunderstood my remarks about that. In relation to a situation such as Camden, as she knows, first of all, my amendment would not apply. You would have to make an appropriate plan in exactly the way that she described, but we are talking about areas where you have schools performing at very different levels and it is the best schools that are forced to reduce their numbers. The noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, describes that as market forces gone to “ridiculous” levels. I just think it is about respecting parent choice, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
With respect to the amendments in the first group, let me be completely clear that this Government are committed to ensuring that all children, especially the most vulnerable, can access a school place where they can achieve and thrive. The whole range of measures in the Bill reflects this objective.
Amendment 198, from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would introduce specific requirements for local authorities when using their powers to direct a school to admit a child. I agree with the noble Baroness that local authority decisions on directing the admission of a child should be reasonable, account for the needs of the child and ensure that schools can meet those needs. As noble Lords have argued, I accept that there is more that needs to be done to ensure that all schools can provide for the needs of children with special educational needs, and that sometimes it is more appropriate for those children to be educated elsewhere. We will address that challenge, which is wider than we are discussing today, in our forthcoming White Paper.
Baroness Barran
“(5A) The adjudicator may not issue a direction under this section requiring the governing body of a maintained school or the proprietor of an Academy to reduce the school’s published admission number unless satisfied that—(a) the direction is necessary and proportionate to secure the efficient and effective use of education provision within the local authority area, and(b) the school—(i) is not operating at or above its current published admission number, and(ii) has not, within the period of three years preceding the direction, been assessed by His Majesty’s Chief Inspector as providing education that is of a high quality.(5B) For the purposes of subsection (5A)(b)(ii), a school shall be regarded as providing education of a high quality where—(a) the most recent inspection carried out under section 5 or section 8 of the Education Act 2005 (duty to inspect schools) concludes that the quality of education at the school is effective or better, or(b) any equivalent finding is made under an inspection framework that succeeds that in force at the passing of this Act.(5C) Before issuing a direction under this section requiring a reduction in a school’s published admission number, the adjudicator must consider whether the objective could more appropriately be achieved by means of changes to the pattern of provision in the area, including (where appropriate) the amalgamation or closure of schools, in accordance with any applicable statutory and departmental guidance on school organisation.(5D) In exercising functions under this section, the adjudicator must have regard to—(a) the desirability of giving effect to parental preferences for schools, and(b) the need to avoid measures that would unduly restrict access to schools that are providing high-quality education or that are in strong demand from parents.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to limit the circumstances in which the schools adjudicator may direct a maintained school or academy to reduce its published admission number and requires the adjudicator to consider alternative school organisation measures (including amalgamation or closure) before constraining the intake of popular or high quality schools.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I appreciate the noble Baroness’s concession of updating the admissions code but, unfortunately, as quickly as it can be updated it can also be re-updated, so I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
“(5) In section 10 of the Academies Act 2010 (consultation: new and expanded educational institutions), in subsection (1)(a) omit the words from “other” to “authority),”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the duty to consult under section 10 of the Academies Act 2010 on whether Academy arrangements should be entered into would also apply to new educational institutions that are the subject of proposals pursuant to a notice under section 7 of Education and Inspections Act 2006.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, we now move to the group on opening new schools. Our priority is that good schools are opened when they are needed. Amendment 202 would amend Section 10 of the Academies Act 2010, relating to the establishment of new academies.
Currently, where academies are established under Section 6A of the Education and Inspections Act 2006—known as the “free school presumption” process—trusts are required to consult before deciding whether to enter into a funding agreement to run the academy. Section 6A will be repealed by the Bill and new academies will be established under Section 7 instead. This amendment is therefore necessary to retain a requirement to consult, meaning that relevant parties will be invited to comment on the details of the plan for the academy, including the planned admission arrangements. I beg to move.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 203 in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran. Free schools have played an important role in raising educational standards over the last 15 years, with their benefits felt most strongly in communities that have needed them the most. As I set out during our discussions in Committee, last summer’s exam results underline their impact: free schools outperformed other non-selective state schools at GCSE and A-level, pushing up standards, particularly in areas of significant deprivation and low educational achievement. Giving school leaders the autonomy to innovate, whether through a longer school day and more stretching curriculum or developing closer links with business and universities, clearly has a measurable impact on school outcomes.
This success continues: only last week, 62 students—over a quarter of the year group—at the London Academy of Excellence, one of the earliest free schools to open, learned they had secured Oxbridge offers, surpassing the success of many of the country’s leading independent schools. This outstanding achievement makes it even more regrettable that, in December, the Government chose not to go ahead with a new sixth-form free school in Middlesbrough, backed by Eton and Star Academies, which aimed to deliver similar outcomes for its students. It was one of 26 proposed mainstream free schools that were cancelled after a long delay, to the dismay of the teachers, parents and communities that had championed their plans.
It is not just one free school or trust making a huge difference: research from the NFER shows pupils attending secondary free schools get better grades at GCSE, have lower absence rates and are more likely to take A-levels and to go to university. Will the Government publish the quantitative thresholds that were used to judge community need, demographic demand and the impact on existing schools that lay behind the recent cancellation of each of the 28 mainstream free school projects, and will they publish the assessment scores for each cancelled project? This would be extremely helpful information and a transparent way for the groups that put a lot of effort into these projects, and the parents, who obviously may not have been privy to conversations with the DfE, to understand the reasons for the decisions.
Free schools have provided a route for new ideas, energy and educational models to join the state system. Indeed, the Government themselves have acknowledged that
“the free schools programme has been crucial to meeting demographic need and pioneering new models that can raise standards”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/12/25; col. 45WS.]
Yet Clause 58 will mean fewer chances to innovate and less opportunity for the best-performing academies to expand and replicate their models. It is disappointing that the Government, despite some of their words, seem unwilling in practice to recognise the contributions free schools have made, and indeed could continue to make, to improving our education system—an achievement in which we should all take pride.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I wonder if the Minister in her reply could tell us this? Presumably, some of these schools are not going ahead not just because of the demographics but because the birth rate is falling in that area and, going back to our previous discussion, it would be stupid to build new schools if we are seeing the birth rate decline.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I shall make the case that Clause 58 should not stand part of the Bill, as set out in my Amendment 203. I am bringing this back because, in Committee, the Minister gave what I think is the most cursory response that I received over the course of the Bill. She said:
“The current system allows local authorities to propose new schools only as a last resort or in very limited circumstances. Local authorities hold the statutory responsibility to secure sufficient school places in their area, and it is right that we give them greater ability to fulfil that duty effectively. These changes will enable consideration of any local offer that meets the needs of children and families”.—[Official Report, 16/9/25; col. 2114.]
I then wrote to the Minister to ask how often local authorities had been unable to meet these duties effectively. The reply stated:
“The department does not collect data on how many times local authorities run a process to open a new school, but as you know, some regions have many more academy trusts operating in them than others; and under the high-quality trust framework, some trusts are considered much stronger than others in terms of governance, finances and educational expertise”.
So, once again, the Government have no firm evidence that there is a problem that needs solving.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As we have heard, group 2 relates to opening new schools. Amendment 203, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would remove Clause 58 from the Bill. Clause 58 ends the legal presumption that new schools should be academies always and allows a wider range of proposals for new schools to be put forward.
During Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, argued that the presumption process has worked well and raised concerns about the capacity of local authorities to deliver new schools. We provided her with further information on these points at her request. I emphasise again that we recognise the contribution that academies make to high and rising standards.
On the particular points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, on the free school pipeline, just to be clear, we are proceeding with those mainstream projects that meet the needs of communities, respond to demographic and housing demand and will raise standards without undermining the viability of existing local schools and colleges. We will back new schools that offer something unique for students who would otherwise not have access to it, but, again, we need to understand the context in which we are operating. Primary pupil numbers have been falling since 2018-19. That decline is set to feed into secondary. Creating new free schools now risks adding surplus capacity while demographic need declines.
Free schools have been a very positive addition to our school system, but, since 2010, over £300 million has been spent on over 53 schools that subsequently closed: money that could have been invested in places for children with special educational needs or in addressing urgent condition needs in existing schools. It is important that we plan these school places and these new openings carefully. We continue to back academy schools and are encouraging high-quality trusts to grow, for example by confirming that the outstanding Star Academies trust will be able to progress the Eton Star Dudley and Oldham projects, which will support young people in disadvantaged areas to progress to top universities, as we have heard.
In Teesside, the decision not to proceed reflects careful consideration of the likely impact on existing good-quality provision. Our assessment of the local context in each area indicated that there was a higher potential risk to the sustainability of the existing academic provision in Teesside than in Dudley and Oldham, which could not be mitigated by conditions. That is why the decision was taken not to proceed in Teesside but to proceed in Dudley and in Oldham. We also undertook to explore with Eton Star whether learners can be supported in a different way through its work.
I do not apologise for the Government taking responsible decisions about how we spend public money on high-quality but also sustainable provision for the future. In relation to special needs schools, for high-needs places we are offering most local authorities the option of per-place funding to deliver the same number of specialist places differently or to continue with their special or AP free school. The measure in Clause 58 will still provide a route for strong trusts to open new schools. We know that high-quality trusts exist in many areas of the country, but not everywhere. In many areas, we expect proposers of new schools to be predominantly or even exclusively high-quality academy trusts, but in other areas, the right trust may not be immediately available to provide the school that is needed. That is why Clause 58 provides flexibility and will support local authorities in fulfilling their sufficiency duty by allowing a wider range of proposals from different bodies and for different types of schools to be considered from the start of the process. This will better enable good local schools to open when needed. Given that, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment and support Clause 58.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove provision no longer needed because of the new general data protection override in section 183A and effect of 183B of the Data Protection Act 2018, both inserted by section 106 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 which came into force on 20 August 2025.
Lord Norton of Louth
“Review of the Act(1) The Secretary of State must—(a) carry out a review of the operation and effect of this Act,(b) set out the conclusions of the review in a report,(c) publish the report, and(d) lay a copy of the report before Parliament.(2) The report must be published before the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, this is a big Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has spent many hours at the Dispatch Box justifying its provisions. This amendment enables her to demonstrate her confidence that it will deliver what she claims for it. The amendment requires the Secretary of State within five years of the passage of the Act to undertake a review of its operation and effect.
Post-legislative scrutiny is essential to ensuring that the laws we enact meet the various criteria of good law. The case for it has been accepted by government since 2008. It results from the report of the Constitution Committee in 2004 entitled Parliament and the Legislative Process. The Government referred the committee’s recommendations on post-legislative scrutiny to the Law Commission, which endorsed the proposal. The Government then announced that Acts would be subject to review by departments three to five years after enactment, with the reviews being published. It was then up to Parliament to decide whether to undertake detailed scrutiny. In the Commons, this has been by departmental Select Committees. In this House, since 2012, we have usually appointed each year a special inquiry committee to undertake post-legislative scrutiny of an Act or of a particular body of legislation, such as adoption law.
In practice, scrutiny by departmental Select Committees in the Commons has been somewhat sporadic. The committees have other priorities. Our practice has been to be highly selective. We cover only a fraction of measures that have reached the statute book in recent years. Those reviews that have been undertaken have variously demonstrated how Acts have been misunderstood or misinterpreted.
We are now being overtaken by other legislatures in engaging in extensive and rigorous post-legislative scrutiny. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said in Committee that she had been able to advise foreign Parliaments on the significance of post-legislative scrutiny. The Westminster Foundation for Democracy has done especially valuable work in promoting its use. The result is that we are now falling behind many other legislatures. That includes within the United Kingdom: Holyrood has had a dedicated committee on post-legislative scrutiny that has been effective. The Ukrainian Parliament, despite obvious pressures, has engaged in significant post-legislative scrutiny.
The Government accept the case for post-legislative scrutiny; the problem is in delivering it. The case for it is compelling. It is essential that Acts of Parliament achieve what they are intended to achieve. Some Acts prove a disaster—those, we tend to hear about—but others may have unintended, albeit not disastrous, consequences. Some may be stillborn. There may be problems with application and interpretation. We cannot know that an Act has achieved its goals without undertaking a thorough review and, in effect, as I said in Committee, completing a legislative feedback loop. Success in legislative terms should not be seen as getting a measure on the statute book—which historically has been how Ministers have tended to see it—but rather in delivering what it is intended to achieve.
The problem is in ensuring that post-legislative scrutiny is undertaken. If there was rigorous and consistent scrutiny, this amendment would be unnecessary. However, not all departments undertake such scrutiny. Some are better than others. As I said, departmental Select Committees in the Commons vary in their willingness to pursue such scrutiny. The danger is that Bills that merit such scrutiny will not receive it. There is nothing to guarantee that they will. As I argued in Committee, there is a case for putting on the face of the measure provision for post-legislative scrutiny where the Bill is large, complex, makes substantial changes to the law, is contested, and has not been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. This Bill qualifies under those criteria.
In Committee, the Minister stressed that she was part of the Government who accepted the recommendations of the Constitution Committee and put on record that the Bill will be reviewed within five years. This was very welcome, but she did not put forward an argument as to why the requirement for post-legislative review should not be in the Bill. To say that there will be a review is not so much an argument against the amendment as the basis for accepting it. Putting it in the Bill would guarantee that there will be a clearly structured review, not one that may be undertaken by a department as a tick-box exercise. Accepting the amendment would make clear the Government’s commitment to post-legislative scrutiny and their confidence in the provisions of the Bill.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. Since coming to this House 16 years ago, I have been fortunate in the ballot for one-year inquiries—in which we are often encouraged to recommend post-legislative scrutiny—to have successfully brought forward one-year inquiries into two pieces of legislation which I was fortunate enough to take through the House of Commons. The first was the Mental Capacity Act 2005; it was subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, but some years later there was still quite a lot that we had to recommend adjusting in it. Secondly, and most recently, last year there was the review of the Autism Act 2009—a very small Bill that might not have needed post-legislative scrutiny when it was passed.
I support the noble Lord. It is quite worrying that there is no structure to the way we identify Bills or any form of legislative commitment to this being carried out. This applies to both Houses, although the expertise in this House lends itself to post-legislative scrutiny and the time involved in doing it is probably more suited to this House than another place. I support him because, sometimes, when we legislate—I think most of us have had this experience—there is a tendency to think that, if we are not quite sure that it says what we mean, the courts will sort it out. That is a very sloppy and dangerous way of legislating, so I support the noble Lord in what he has said.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling the government amendment, which His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support. We also thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for his amendment. He has been described in the media as the United Kingdom’s greatest living expert on Parliament and a world authority on constitutional issues. He is entirely correct that post-legislative scrutiny is essential for any public Act, but it is especially important for Bills as substantial as this. By the conclusion of Report, we will have debated over 10 amendments seeking reviews of various aspects of the Bill, which surely highlights how wide ranging its impact is expected to be. An all-encompassing review would combine these amendments and, most importantly, allow the Government to evidence the positive change that they believe this Bill will put into effect. Some form of post-legislative scrutiny is the right vehicle, and the noble Lord’s amendment would serve as the foundation stone of that verification.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in group 3 concern a review of the Act on commencement. Amendment 205 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. I too recognise his continued dedication to this matter, echoing the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and his undoubted experience and expertise in this area. As my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern set out in Committee, I am pleased to reassure the noble Lord again that the department understands the importance of the legislative feedback loop, as he described it clearly then and again this afternoon, and is committed to that. However, we believe this amendment cuts across what is a perfectly clear set of cross-government expectations for post-legislative scrutiny.
The question he poses is: why did we not undertake pre-legislative scrutiny? The Government give consideration to which Bills will be published in draft, taking into account the overall requirements of the legislative programme and how to ensure that time is used as efficiently as possible. The Government did not consider the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill necessary for pre-legislative scrutiny, and therefore did not publish it in draft. We wrote to the Education Select Committee upon introduction of the Bill in the House of Commons and provided a briefing opportunity with officials before its Second Reading.
The noble Lord has previously raised issues in this House with the current process for such scrutiny. The process seeks to ensure that the chair of the Commons Select Committee has adequate information to decide whether to instigate a fuller inquiry, and we would expect to undertake that fuller inquiry given the importance of this Bill. However, as he will know, should they decide not to, that inquiry can be taken up by another interested parliamentary committee of either House.
In Committee, the noble Lord noted that the Government included post-legislative scrutiny in the Football Governance Act. I am not sure if others in the Chamber were subjected to the passage of the Football Governance Bill, but it was an interesting process. That was a single-issue Bill, so it was deemed appropriate for that Bill. However, that does not mean it is appropriate for all Bills, as I am sure noble Lords will be aware. This Bill covers a broad range of measures, with different timelines for implementation and different evaluation needs. I think we would all agree, for example, that the rollout of a single unique identifier is quite different from the rollout of breakfast clubs.
None the less, alongside our commitment to post-legislative scrutiny, we have committed to a post-implementation review as part of the Better Regulation Framework. We published our plans in the impact assessment for this Bill, on which the RPC rated us green, for how we will monitor and evaluate the transformative measures that will change the lives of millions of children and young people. I hope that noble Lords are reassured. I repeat that commitment now, for good measure: we will undertake post-legislative scrutiny for this Bill, but it is not needed to be included the Bill when it is already an expectation.
On government amendment 246, Clause 67 currently provides that
“any provision of or amendment made by Part 1 or 2, so far as it confers or relates to a power to make regulations or an order”,
will come into force on the day the Act is passed. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for his support for the amendment. It will clarify that, by order, we mean secondary legislation. The only instance of secondary legislation order in the Bill is Schedule 3, which amends the Education Act 2002 to provide that the Secretary of State may by order make provision requiring the remuneration of an academy teacher to be at least equal to the amount specified in or determined in accordance with the order. The amendment would ensure that it is clear what order the Bill is referring to.
I hope I have addressed the noble Lord’s concerns, and that he feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, the Minister’s response is disappointing. I am grateful to the two Front Benches for their very kind opening comments but in terms of the substance of the amendment, I thought the Minister’s comments reinforced the case for post-legislative scrutiny; she spent some time explaining why the Bill has not been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, which I would have thought adds to the case for subjecting it to post-legislative scrutiny. She referred to the Football Governance Act, which just dealt with one particular issue, whereas this Bill is very wide-ranging. There is therefore scope for a lot of things to go wrong, which I would have thought reinforced the case for checking that the Bill has delivered on all aspects of what the Government seek to achieve with it.
The value of committing to post-legislative scrutiny is the Government demonstrating that they have confidence in the measure. If there is to be a review anyway, why not put that on the face of the Bill? At least critics of it would then know that it will definitely be subject to review—it is in the Bill, and that will happen. That is one of the arguments for post-legislative scrutiny of the Football Governance Act.
As I say, I am disappointed with the response. I shall keep coming back to the case for putting provision for post-legislative scrutiny on the face of Bills that meet the criteria I have outlined, and will press the Government to have the courage of their convictions. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Citizenship education: British values(1) In any statement relating to British values for education purposes at primary and secondary level in England and Wales, the Secretary of State, OFSTED and any other public authority must include—(a) democracy,(b) the rule of law,(c) freedom,(d) equal respect for every person, and(e) respect for the environment.(2) Any statement in subsection (1) must refer to British values as “values of British citizenship”.(3) The values listed under paragraphs (1)(a) to (e) must be taught as part of citizenship education for key stages 1, 2, 3 and 4.(4) In section (1)(a) “democracy” includes—(a) an independent judiciary,(b) in a Parliamentary system, a Government that is accountable to Parliament, regular election, and(c) decentralised decision-making, accountable at an appropriate level to the electorate.(5) In subsection (1)(c) “freedom” includes—(a) freedom of thought, conscience and religion,(b) freedom of expression, and(c) freedom of assembly and association.(6) In subsection (1)(e) “respect for the environment” means taking into account the systemic effect of human actions on the health and sustainability of the environment both within the United Kingdom and the planet as a whole, for present and future generations.”
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 206 is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and, before he retired, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. It is also strongly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who hoped to be here this afternoon, but I see that he is not in his place yet.
I apologise to those, including the Minister, who have heard me on this subject before in other contexts. I am persisting with it because I believe that the Government are missing a great opportunity. With so much now dividing our society, what should unite us are fundamental British values. Deeper than the differences of race, religion and sexuality are the political institutions and values which hold our society together. The Government could, and should, be making much more of them. One reason I believe this is not the case is that the original formulation of these values was done as part of the Prevent programme and, as a result, they are somewhat skewed, as I hope to show.
My amendment is designed to make these values clearer and more balanced. Fundamental British values as at present defined are democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. Democracy and the rule of law are of course fundamental. But because the emphasis is on mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs, which of course I strongly support, the balance is somewhat wrong and there is a serious omission, notably the equal value and worth of each individual. The values in my amendment are set out as democracy, the rule of law, freedom, equal respect for every person and respect for the environment.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 208 in this group. It is a pleasure to follow the noble and right reverend Lord. While I might not agree with everything he said, the debate on British values was an extremely common theme of my time in the Department for Education. It is a commentary on the world we live in that we now need to define what we mean by democracy, but I do not disagree with the point the noble and right reverend Lord made. I thank other noble Lords who added their names to Amendment 208: the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
As this amendment was debated in Committee, I will not take too long to introduce it. But I also do not think that I really need to convince the Government Front Bench, given that, just before Christmas, we had the arrival of the Government’s long-awaited violence against women and girls strategy. It was good to see the commitment:
“The Minister for Skills is exploring the most effective route to make Relationships and Sex Education … mandatory for young people under 18 in further education colleges”.
Unknown to many—including, presumably, some noble Lords in this House—and rather extraordinarily, hundreds of thousands of young people aged 16 to 18 are currently excluded from the benefits of relationships and sex education if they happen to be in further education colleges. This is despite the fact that this group experiences, for example, the highest rates of domestic abuse. An estimated 608,000 students aged 16 to 18 study in either further education or sixth-form colleges in England. Although further education colleges can deliver relationships and sex education on a voluntary basis, provision is inconsistent, unmonitored and often with scant training or support for those who are asked to teach it.
The campaign has the support of the Association of Colleges. I am also grateful to the Let Me Know young people advocates, Tabitha and Angela, who spoke so movingly at a briefing last week for Members of this House on why the extension of this education is needed for their age group. I also pay tribute to the efforts of Faustine Petron of Make It Mandatory, a survivor and formidable campaigner who identified the gap in education for this age group, having been unsupported during her own experience of relationship abuse. Some 105,000 people have now backed her petition.
Recent research from the Institute for Addressing Strangulation shows that almost half—43%—of sexually active 16 and 17 year-olds have been strangled during sex, and 70% of young people surveyed by the Children’s Commissioner have seen porn routinely featuring rape, strangulation and incest. This House and the other place have rightly been introducing, discussing and amending legislation on issues such as nudification apps, violent online pornography, harmful and abusive content across social media, and the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. That is why, at the same time, we must support the creation of space in the curriculum for all 16 to 18 year-olds—the very age group most likely to be having to deal with the reality of these and other relevant issues—so that they receive a proper education on these matters. As the young people I met last week said, for them, these issues are not theoretical. The more than 600,000 young people in further education colleges have as much right to that curriculum as the rest of their peers.
I am grateful to the Minister for her engagement on this issue. I shall listen very carefully to what she says. As I say, I think she agrees with the overall thrust of this amendment. If this is not the right Bill, which I think reflects the conversation that she and I had, I ask her to say which one would be, and, if one of those who support this change were fortunate enough to secure the ability to bring forward some legislation sooner than the next Department for Education Bill, I would be grateful if the Government would indicate their support for it.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 220, relating to the guidance for schools on gender-questioning children, which is still long overdue and which I think we have to ensure happens as quickly as possible. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for having pursued this and for tabling her amendments.
This is incredibly important and necessary to clarify issues for parents, for teachers in understanding and knowing exactly how they might deal with the difficult questions around gender-questioning children, and of course for children themselves. Obviously, this relates to some of the controversy and the failure to issue the EHRC code in relation to the guidance coming from the Supreme Court judgment, but it stands on its own terms.
When I talk to teachers and parents, there is still a lot of confusion about the demands of the Equality Act 2010’s gender reassignment protected characteristic and how one deals with that, and duties in relation to it, and how that might clash with, for example, safeguarding or free speech. That leaves teachers exposed and unclear.
I want to refer to what it feels like for parents who, across the UK, have been shocked to discover what their children have been taught or told in classrooms and have sounded the alarm on some teachers covering highly sexualised age-inappropriate content with young pupils and, in some schools, even affirming children in their gender identity—that is, social transitioning—without the consent or knowledge of their parents. It is understandable that that has caused alarm. For three to four year-old children just starting to learn to tell fact from fiction, the difference between make-believe games with friends pretending to be princesses, playing families or whatever and telling children at this stage that a person can literally change from one sex to another can be hugely confusing. I understand that this is not the Government’s intention and that they want to clarify it, but that is why I think the guidance should be urgently introduced and explained to schools and the Government should make clear what is and is not permissible.
Too often, it is left up to grass-roots activists otherwise. Recently, an article hit the media about a group of women—one a retired midwife, another a retired solicitor and another a mum of two—from a group called Protect and Teach who said that many schools do not have the appropriate safeguards in place. They are especially worried about outside organisations being invited in to effectively teach children, some as young as primary school, about inclusiveness, which might sound harmless until you look at the kinds of teaching materials used by these third-party organisations that research shows have very flawed policies, muddling up sex in the Equality Act 2010 with sexual identity and gender.
That is one of the reasons why we have concerns. Some of the work the group did, for example, showed that 75% of Church of England schools had problematic policies in relation to, for example, anti-bullying policies, which are not directly related, but practically all the material used in those policies focused on transgender identity, not bullying in any other way. The message of this was that affirmation was the way forward and young people needed to be kept safe from polarised debates, which would indicate a one size fits all. So I am straightforwardly saying that we need clear guidance. The Government must issue that clear guidance. Schools need help with this. It is not easy—nobody is saying it is—but what we cannot do is just leave it open.
I will make one final point on Amendment 206 from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. I commend him for doggedly and persistently pushing this amendment, which I have heard a number of times. I commend his celebration of British values, because I think that is important, and I have said that before, although I do not agree with the content of all the British values listed. The “respect for the environment” paragraph is particularly contentious and weak: I have written “twaddle” here. That is probably not a parliamentary word, but I have written it down.
The section on democracy includes that the Government should be accountable to Parliament, which is something we could learn a lesson from. The Government are not always accountable to Parliament—there are far too many Henry VIII clauses, in my view. It also notes that democracy, as a value, should mean regular elections, which would suggest that you should not cancel them, as we are witnessing at the moment. It talks about the importance of the rule of law, which immediately reminded me of what is happening to jury trials. It finally says that “freedom” should include freedom of thought and conscience, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly and association. As somebody going through the Crime and Policing Bill, I did think it was perhaps worth sending the British values amendment of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, to the people pushing that Bill. I assure noble Lords that freedom of thought, expression, assembly and association are not safe under that Bill.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 208 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. The reason is very simple. I do not know how many of your Lordships have seen a documentary available on BBC iPlayer called “Lover, Liar, Predator”. For those who have not seen it, it is pretty searing. It has a happy ending in the sense that the women who were abused by this man—who started at the age of 17—in the end learned about one another, got together and very bravely faced their accuser in court. A Scottish jury found the predator guilty on all counts by a unanimous decision.
The reason I mention this is that, in almost every case, the predator seized upon young women when they were 16, 17 or 18. That is the age at which, frequently, young women—and some young men, although they are usually a bit slower on the uptake—get involved in relationships. At that age, without the right education, without understanding, frankly, the nature of some men, it is easy to get into a relationship in which one quickly loses one’s sense of self—the ability to take one’s own decisions and to direct the course of one’s life.
This was articulated at the briefing the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, kindly arranged last week, which some of us were at. Some of the students themselves spoke powerfully of their own cases, or those of people they have known who, at that vulnerable stage in their lives, growing into sexual beings, got it wrong. Given particularly that this accords completely with the Government’s new strategy, the more we can do to reinforce that and to enable this cadre of children—some several hundred thousand, which is a not insignificant number—to receive the education that all their peers in other forms of education are receiving seems a no-brainer.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 243C standing in my name and those of my noble friends in sport, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I thank them for supporting this amendment.
My amendment follows up on an amendment previously brought forward so powerfully by my noble friend Lord Moynihan in Committee, which attracted cross-party support. I am delighted that he has rejoined our Front Bench, with responsibility for energy and net zero. We will miss him from debates on sport policy. I will do my best to match his energy.
We have an ambition across the House to raise educational outcomes and improve children’s well-being. The school curriculum is currently under review, and that makes this a particularly timely moment. My amendment is offered in a constructive spirit, as was my noble friend Lord Moynihan’s, as a way of supporting the Government’s wider aims by ensuring that physical education and school sport are considered in a coherent and strategic way.
This amendment asks the Secretary of State to publish within 12 months
“a national strategy for physical education and sport in schools”,
and to review and report on it annually to Parliament. It does not advise how schools should deliver provision. Instead, it brings together existing priorities such as daily physical activity, teacher training and inclusion for disabled pupils into a single framework, with clear outcomes and accountability. To be clear, it is intended to assist and not constrain government policy.
The evidence shows that regular physical activity and engagement in school sport not only improves health and well-being but supports concentration, behaviour, attendance and attainment in literacy and numeracy, with benefits that extend into later life. Many schools are already doing great work in this area, often under significant pressure. To make this work more effective, teachers need the right resources, training and support.
While the Bill has children’s well-being in its name, it has not addressed how schools could properly use physical education, sport and physical activity to support this and improve educational outcomes. This amendment seeks to offer a fully integrated national strategy to address that gap and monitor and evaluate the best way of doing it. Data, evaluation and analysis are so important to this endeavour.
It is a strong belief, which I know is shared across this Chamber, that physical education is not merely a subject; it is a cornerstone in the development of young people, fostering health, resilience, teamwork and confidence. When embedded effectively, it can also contribute to wider educational goals, supporting behaviour, attendance and attainment across the curriculum. This amendment also encourages collaboration between education, health, sport and the voluntary sector, and provides a framework to align existing efforts in this space behind a shared national vision. It identifies the leadership role of the Minister in bringing that collaboration together and ensuring consistency of approach.
Back in 2021, I was a member of the taskforce established by the Association of Physical Education. We published a report, which issued a clear call to government to put physical education at the heart of school life. If the Government are serious, as I believe they are, about improving well-being in schools and giving every child an opportunity to thrive, this amendment would offer a constructive opportunity to consider how a national strategy for physical education and school sport could help deliver those ambitions. I therefore hope that the Minister will see this amendment in that spirit and give it careful and positive consideration.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to the House and to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for not being here at the beginning of this group. I have a member of staff who lives a normal life, and I quite rightly agreed that she should go home. As a consequence and because there is no Braille on the annunciator, I was a bit late getting in, so I will be incredibly brief.
I support Amendment 206, to which I have added my name. In the light of the Curriculum and Assessment Review, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will ensure that, now, the Department for Education gives its full and comprehensive support to the proper teaching of democracy and citizenship all the way through the curriculum, which the Government committed to in their response to the review; and that we engage with every school in the country to ensure that young people are equipped for the future, not least for the traumas and difficulties they now face.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I will speak on my Amendments 231 and then 232. Amendment 231 may be familiar to the House, as it reflects the substance of the Bill I previously brought forward on this subject, which is on spiritual, moral, social and cultural education in assemblies.
The amendment is simple in intent: it would remove the legal duty on schools without a religious character to provide daily collective worship that is wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character. This would not prevent any school holding acts of collective worship if it wishes to do so, and, despite some misunderstandings, it does not ban prayers, Christmas carols or the marking of religious festivals. It simply ends the mandatory requirement of Christian worship in schools that are non-faith schools by designation.
This is about freedom of choice and respect for the diversity of our society. When the 2021 census shows that over a third of the population of England and Wales now have no religious character, it cannot be justified that schools are still legally obliged to provide daily Christian worship.
This is not a matter of abstract principle; there is clear evidence from the profession itself that reform is wanted. A 2024 Teacher Tapp poll of senior school leaders found that around seven in 10 oppose the legal requirement for daily collective worship, with only a small minority in favour of the current law. Likewise, in its submission to the Curriculum and Assessment Review’s call for evidence, the NAHT argued that the current legal requirement for daily broadly Christian worship should be removed because it is “too prescriptive and narrow”, while emphasising the value of inclusive assemblies that reflect the diversity of the school community.
It is sometimes said that families who object can simply withdraw their children. It is true that parents have a statutory right to withdraw a child from collective worship, but in practice that can be a poor substitute for an inclusive approach. It may mean that children are separated from their peers, miss shared parts of school life or sit apart while others take part. It is notable that, in JR87, the Supreme Court considered precisely this point in the context of religious education and collective worship in Northern Ireland, recognising that reliance on withdrawal can place
“an undue burden on parents”
and risks stigmatising the child—hardly the hallmarks of a meaningful and equal choice.
Of course, I recognise that many noble Lords hold sincere views about the value of Christian worship in schools, and I respect those convictions. That is precisely why this amendment is carefully drawn. It would not change the position of schools with a religious character but would simply ensure that non-faith schools are not compelled by law to provide worship that does not reflect the views and beliefs of many of the families that they serve. In place of a daily worship requirement, schools would still provide regular assemblies that support pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development in a way that is inclusive of pupils of all faiths and none, mirroring the approach set out in proposals previously considered by this House.
Maintaining a blanket duty of daily Christian worship in schools without a religious character is increasingly out of step with the country we serve and insufficiently respectful of families with no religion. This amendment would provide more genuine choice, not less, and allow non-faith schools to be properly inclusive community schools for every child.
Amendment 232 proposes a new clause for the inclusion of non-religious beliefs in religious education. It would put it beyond doubt in statute that religious education must include teaching about non-religious beliefs, such as humanism, across all key stages. At the outset, I acknowledge that we are in the midst of the Government’s Curriculum and Assessment Review. The review is highly relevant because it concludes that
“RE’s importance is not currently reflected in its standing in the curriculum”.
It recommends that RE should be moved
“to the national curriculum in due course”,
with a staged process involving
“faith bodies, secular groups and experts from the teaching and wider education sector, to develop a draft RE curriculum”.
I welcome this direction of travel.
The review is also clear about why reform is needed, stating that RE is currently
“a basic rather than national curriculum subject”,
with content that is “not nationally defined” and local support arrangements that are “complex and fraying”, producing “uneven provision”. However, “in due course” is doing a lot of work here. Unless and until those recommendations are implemented, we will still have the present patchwork of locally agreed syllabuses and widely varying practice. It is in that context that Amendment 232 is needed. It is a modest, clarifying amendment that ensures that, whatever the structure of RE, pupils must learn about non-religious beliefs as well as religions.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 208, to which I have added my name; I also express support for the aims of Amendment 206 as a fellow member of the Select Committee which the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, mentioned.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, made the substantive case very well, so I will not add to that as I do not think it is necessary. I just remind noble Lords that supporters of the amendment, of whom there are many, called it the Massey amendment in memory of, and in tribute to, our dear late friend and colleague Lady Massey of Darwen—Doreen—who did so much for children and young people’s health and well-being.
I hope that the Government will think again and, if they are not prepared to accept this amendment, that my noble friend will give answers to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, and it will be very clear as to how exactly they going to pursue the commitment made in the very welcome VAWG strategy document.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I will very quickly add my support to Amendment 206. I shall be brief, because the points have already been made. I was a fellow traveller on the committee that considered this and I share with others a recognition of the tenacity that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, has shown with this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, reminded us of when “British values” was brought into the curriculum. It was not an easy time and it was not readily accepted. I congratulate the noble Baroness on her tenacity in getting that on the agenda.
Times are not easy now, what must be 10 years later, but it is right that we review the content of what we call British values. The teaching profession has had experience of teaching this and of organising schools that have it at their centre. We have learned a lot. The publication of the national curriculum review is an ideal opportunity to address this again.
Democracy is not taught well in schools. My noble friend Lord Blunkett is absolutely right that we do not do this well; we could do it a lot better. The need to do so is great. This amendment gives us an excellent opportunity to address that.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I reinforce what has just been said and endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said. He and I have made common cause on this for some time.
I shall be extremely brief, because I want to make just one point. It is not so much about the substance of the amendment but why, as has just been said, it is essential that we take citizenship teaching seriously in this country. It is crucial because, at the moment, there is a problem with public trust in government and in Parliament. It is slow and declining and, unless we do something about it, we are going to be in real trouble. We need to invest resources into the teaching of citizenship. That means making sure that schools take it seriously and have the incentive to do so. It is no good just saying it is in the curriculum. Schools have to realise, “We have to teach this, we’ve got the incentive to do it and we have the resources”. It cannot just be left to any teacher on a wet Wednesday afternoon to teach citizenship. It is crucial and has to be taken seriously. I regard this amendment as absolutely key to British democracy.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norton, except that I do not believe that we can put all the pressure on schools, which have so many other pressures on them.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
I totally agree. I should have said that I regard this as necessary but not sufficient.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Schools have faced so many other pressures with exams, results and Ofsted judgments, that saying “And you’ve got to shove citizenship in here, but you’re not really going to get rewarded for it” is not going to work. The direction has to come from the centre.
It is interesting that this group of amendments has been so rich and apparently so varied. Actually, what it does is talk about education that prepares students for life, not just for exams or jobs but to be citizens, members of communities, neighbours and possibly parents, and it prepares them to have healthy bodies while they are doing that. That is the only point I will make on the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, who made her point powerfully. Physical education has been totally downgraded, and that has to stop and be reversed.
In responding, I have to start with the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that respect for the environment was “twaddle”. I looked it up in the dictionary. Among the definitions were “trivial” and “foolish”. I am assuming that the noble Baroness understands that she had to breathe to be able to deliver that speech. That relies on plants, algae and cyanobacteria to generate the oxygen to allow her to breathe. So that label is obviously incorrect. I will leave that there.
I turn to Amendment 220, which the proposer, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has not yet introduced. Schools do need practical and lawful guidance, but forcing the Government to bring that guidance in on the day that the Bill becomes an Act will inhibit schools’ ability. The guidance was always intended to be non-statutory, including when it was first published in draft by the previous Government. I acknowledge that we have not yet heard from the noble Baroness, but I do not think that, in Committee, we heard any explanation of why the guidance needs to be statutory.
I will speak very briefly on the two amendments that I actually signed. Amendment 208 has been very ably spoken to by others; I am just going to make one additional point. This is about providing relationship and sex education to persons of 16 and 17 in education. Your Lordships’ House chose to call for a ban on social media for under-16s. We do not know where that will end up, but, if the ban comes in and, assuming it works, young people at 16 start accessing a whole range of previously banned material, surely, they will need the help of education and support to be able to work through, process, understand and think about that. So we should think about how those two things fit together.
The other thing is that the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, knows that I have backed her Private Member’s Bill at least twice previously. She introduced it very clearly. The one thing I will add is that, in terms of education for life, we ask schools to create more space in school time in particular for cultural and social education, but where are they going to find the time? That assembly time could be a really useful time and, if that is preparing people for life—developing cultural interests, developing artistic interests, developing a love of the theatre or a love of music, all things that help people prepare for a rich and satisfying life—that is what we need our schools to be doing much more of.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I shall very briefly add my support to Amendment 243C and, in doing so, declare my interest as a member of the board of the London Marathon Foundation. As we have heard, schools play a crucial role in the formation of lifelong activity habits, but they need to be properly supported, both to provide more opportunities within school and to ensure that what they offer meets the needs of the various interests of young people and children, to make sure that they fully engage with physical education. A national strategy would give schools the structure they need to guarantee consistently high-quality physical education, as well as help them build partnerships with community sports organisations, creating pathways that link school-based activity with accessible opportunities outside school.
In its recent submission to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee’s inquiry into community and school sport, London Marathon stressed the pressing need for national and local government, schools, governing bodies and charitable and commercial organisations to align behind tangible shared objectives to get children and young people active and, most importantly, keep them active. By mandating the publication of a national strategy for physical education and sports in schools, this amendment will be an important step to delivering just that.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I shall make a couple of brief comments on the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, introduced so well. I draw the House’s attention to proposed new subsection (2)(k). If you take part in physical activity only in educational establishments, you generally stop doing it when you leave, so getting in outside bodies to say that playing in a team at the weekend or in the evening is a reasonably normal thing to do means that you are much more likely to do it once you are outside that environment. It is something we have consistently found. It probably applies to other areas as well, but, if we are talking about a coherent sports strategy, that is one thing that the Government really must give more time and thought to.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak mainly to Amendment 206, but, as somebody who has taught more PSHE days than he cares to remember, I think I might make a few comments on this one. I have spoken many times about how I think we need to bring PSHE and citizenship much more into the regular curriculum on a weekly basis. To put my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries of Pentregarth’s mind at ease, his amendment looked to me like a scheme that could work: it is very similar to what we teach. I think that, with all due respect to several House of Lords committees, the subtle differences are not going to filter their way down to schools. I think we need to teach this. We need to make sure it is important. Teachers are very good at interpreting this, schools are very good and the basic subtleties do not really matter to me, I am afraid.
In response to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, I would say, “Please can I join the school with an hour of sport a day?” And can we hurry up as well? My daughter is in year 10: she is locked in the bathroom, but she would be really keen to hear that. If we are trying to get kids back into school and we have nearly 1 million missing school, might this not be worth trying?
I actually rose to speak to Amendment 208, and will give one quote, from Tender. If noble Lords do not know it, Tender is an unbelievable expert charity that delivers RSE to young people, from primary schools all the way to sixth form. Its CEO, Susie McDonald, said: “We are all too aware that 16 to 19 year-olds are at the highest risk of abuse in their relationships. At this critical age, young people simply cannot be left without the vital education to keep themselves and others safe. We have all seen the horrifying results, from rising levels of coercive control to the murder of teenage girls by teenage boys. We know how to prevent it: with mandatory, high-quality relationship education, all the way to 18”.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, in my view, all the amendments in this group are important and worth seriously considering. I will deal first with Amendment 206. Of course, one person’s twaddle is most people’s reality.
The Curriculum and Assessment Review is an important step along the road to what the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, wants. It will actually strengthen the current citizenship curriculum. For the first time, it brings in citizenship at primary level as well. Now that we have the review, and the parts of it that have slightly altered civic and constitutional education, for example, I do not quite understand what the next stage is of populating that curriculum, particularly for citizenship and the points that the noble and right reverend Lord’s amendment makes, such as democracy, the rule of law, freedom, respect for every person and respect for the environment.
All that is important, but the most important thing, in my view, as well as having it on the curriculum, is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, made. It is no good having a subject as important as citizenship unless you have quality teaching and staff who want to teach it, not just staff dragged in from the PE or the language department to do it. You need to have first-class materials to make that work.
On Amendment 208, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, I do not understand how a student in a school has relationship and sex education, yet a 16 year-old in a college does not. It just does not make sense. I am sure the Minister will be able to tell us that this should change, because it is hugely important. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for tabling that amendment.
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Sater and Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their important amendment. In a sense, we have gone backwards, because we used to have an hour of sport and PE on the curriculum. It was one of the initiatives introduced by the Blair Government. For some reason, it got lost or diluted. I just do not understand why. When did it suddenly fall off the cliff edge, and who was waving the banner saying we should stop this? We still must have an hour of sport and PE on our school curriculum.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for her amendments. I know some noble Lords will slightly wince at them but, with the exception of faith schools, what she is saying is happening in most of our secondary schools, and Ofsted is not reporting it. Most secondary schools that are non-faith schools are not carrying out a daily collective act of worship which is mainly Christian. It is just not happening. Maybe at some stage, whether we like it or not, we should face up to the reality of the situation.
My final question is to the Minister, on humanism. We have local SACREs, which decide what will be taught in schools in their locality. Could a SACRE minister say that humanism would be part of that religious education?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I have one substantive amendment in this group, Amendment 220, which is also signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked why the guidance needs to be statutory. I think the answer is that the issues associated with children who are questioning their gender at a young age overlaps significantly with the safeguarding responsibilities of a school and therefore should be on a statutory footing.
As we discussed in Committee, the consultation on the draft guidance for schools for children questioning their gender identity closed in May 2024, and we are now approaching the two-year anniversary of this. I must say that it is laughable that the Government think they will respond in a matter of weeks to a consultation about whether to prevent under-16s from accessing harmful and addictive social media, but it takes nearly two years and we have no response from government on the gender questioning guidance, which was in draft and had been consulted on. The Government repeatedly say they need time to get it right; I just wondered whether the Minister could give us an indication of how much time, and how much time they think they will need to get the social media issue right. It feels like, if this is two years, that might be 10 years. The Government really need to get moving to publish the guidance to safeguard our children in these schools from this very contested and harmful ideology.
I thank my noble friend Lady Sater and her cosignatories for the extremely constructive Amendment 243C, delivered with exactly the same amount of energy as our noble friend Lord Moynihan. We read in the national press about potential cuts to funding for sport in schools. I wonder whether the Minister can reassure the House that that is not the case. Sport is—I reluctantly admit, as the least athletic person in your Lordships’ House—extremely important. As we have heard, sport builds not just physical fitness but teamwork, mental resilience and an ability to meet the two imposters of triumph and disaster on the field with equanimity. I hope the Minister will give this amendment the consideration it deserves.
My noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes made the case powerfully for bringing consistency to the provision of relationships and sex education and PSHE to pupils in FE colleges. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and I tussled over his amendment back in the Schools Bill in 2022, but he remains very persuasive on this subject. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Finally, I expressed our concerns about the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, in Committee. I am afraid our position has not changed.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group address themes that are central to pupils’ development and well-being, and the values that underpin life in Britain. The Government remain committed to supporting schools and colleges with clear expectations and guidance so that they can deliver high-quality teaching that reflects the diversity of young people’s experiences and prepares them for modern life.
Amendment 206, in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, seeks to introduce and define values of British citizenship. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and as the noble and right reverend Lord admitted, I have also had the benefit of discussing this before, particularly when he introduced his Private Member’s Bill. We had a good debate, which was longer than we are going to be able to have today, on this issue and on some of the questions raised by noble Lords about how we can ensure citizenship is not only on the national curriculum but delivered effectively.
Although I agree with the sentiment, I do not believe that primary legislation is the right way to secure effective implementation. Schools already embed important values through their statutory duty to promote pupils’ spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development. They should remain free to tailor their approach, ensuring that values remain relevant to pupils’ lives.
However, we need to do more to give citizenship teaching the place it deserves on the curriculum. That is why, following the curriculum and assessment review, we will introduce new statutory citizenship teaching at primary level and an updated secondary programme of study. Consultation on that work will be under way soon, so noble Lords who have rightly engaged in the debate about the significance of citizenship teaching will be able to contribute to that.
On Amendment 208 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, as I said in Committee, we recognise the importance of supporting young people with high-quality teaching on healthy relationships. That is why personal, social, health and economic education, including sex and relationships, is taught in colleges. However, I recognise the gap in the nature of the requirement the noble Baroness identifies, particularly for further education colleges. We have begun to take action on that.
In response to calls from the further education sector, we commissioned a leading expert to create a well-evidenced range of resources to help colleges deliver high-impact relationships and sex education tutorials. I am grateful to Polly Harrow, our FE champion on this, for the work she is doing. The freely available toolkit provides high-quality lesson plans, materials and bespoke training to equip staff with the confidence needed to engage young people in conversations about misogyny, respect and consent, particularly given the context which many noble Lords have referenced this afternoon: the particular challenges for young people of this age, which I wholly accept and share their concern on.
I was particularly affected by the meeting I was able to have with Faustine Petron from the Make It Mandatory campaign, along with colleagues from the Sex Education Forum, End Violence Against Women and the Brook sexual health charity about the requirement to go further on this.
Although the Bill is not the best vehicle, as I have discussed with the noble Baroness, given this late stage in its progress and the absence of other further education measures, I intend to identify the most deliverable route to make relationships and sex education mandatory in further education. As the noble Baroness will know, I am not in a position to name Bills that may or may not be coming down the track, but she also referenced the possibility that somebody might choose this as a topic for a Private Member’s Bill. Were that to be the case, I would most certainly want to engage in supporting that making progress.
On Amendments 220 and 247 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, we have been clear about our commitment to placing children’s well-being at the centre of guidance for schools on gender-questioning children. We are clear that the Cass review’s conclusions and principles—the review was of course published since the issuing of the draft guidance—need to be reflected in it and that schools can be confident in that.
We know that concerned professionals, parents and children would welcome clarity on how schools should respond to young people who are questioning their gender. We have been carefully considering all the evidence as well as responses from the public consultation. It is essential that we take the time to get this right and to consider the best way to support schools. We will confirm next steps in due course, but our approach is clear: an evidence-led approach, clarity for schools, and children’s well-being at the centre of it.
Turning to Amendment 231 in the name of the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, this Government are committed to collective worship in schools. Schools are already required to promote spiritual, moral, social and cultural development within their curriculum and have flexibility to deliver non-religious assemblies. We plan to publish updated guidance later this year on collective worship in England to make expectations clear, including objective, pluralistic and critical delivery to give schools practical support.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, I thank all those who have supported my amendment and those who have spoken to the other amendments. First, I will comment very briefly on the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who was her usual trenchant self. The reason for including respect for the environment in this list is that this, above all, is an issue young people care about. If you want young people to care about democracy and law, the list of values must also express something they really do feel strongly about. That is the reason why that is part of the list.
How valuable it is to have the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, with us, given his front-line experience. I hesitate to respond to what he said, but he referred to this as a matter of subtleties. Rather, I would suggest that it is fundamental. The present list of fundamental values that have to be taught in schools includes the phrase “individual liberty”. It seems to me if you talked to a pupil about individual liberty and asked them what it means, they would say, “Does it mean that I can do what I want?” However, in the amendment before us, freedom is spelt out as freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and so on. It is quite specific, and it is this which needs to be taught in citizenship education.
I thank the Minister very much for her, as usual, warm reply. Maybe it would be possible for us to have a further conversation in future about how we can get some significant changes in relation to the curriculum assessment review, because it would strengthen the teaching of citizenship education to have this included. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Young of Acton
“Duty to keep schools open for in person attendance(1) So far as reasonably possible, public authorities must ensure that, during the period of any civil emergency, schools are kept open for in person attendance by children and young people.(2) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision about how public authorities should discharge the duty under subsection (1), including provision specifying—(a) steps that a public authority may or must take to comply with the duty, and(b) actions that a public authority is prohibited from taking.(3) Regulations made under subsection (2) must be made by statutory instrument.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (2) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(5) A power to make regulations under this section includes the power to make—(a) consequential, incidental, supplementary, transitional or saving provision;(b) different provision for different purposes.(6) A public authority must not, in response to a civil emergency, take or facilitate any action (including making regulations, issuing directions, issuing orders, giving guidance, or making recommendations) that—(a) results in, or encourages, the closure of schools, or(b) otherwise prevents or restricts lawful attendance at such institutions or premises by children and young people,unless the requirements of subsection (7) are met.(7) Before taking any action of the kind described in subsection (6), the public authority must first, unless the urgency of the civil emergency precludes this—(a) request the advice of the Children’s Commissioner on the likely impact of such action on the children and young people who will be affected by the action,(b) provide the Children’s Commissioner with full and complete information about the nature of and reasons for the proposed action, and(c) have due regard to the Children’s Commissioner’s advice in determining whether to proceed with the action.(8) If any action of the kind described in subsection (6) is taken prior to seeking the advice of the Children’s Commissioner due to urgency—(a) as soon as reasonably practicable and in any event within seven days of taking the action, the public authority must provide the Children’s Commissioner with full and complete information about the nature of and reasons for that action;(b) the Children’s Commissioner must then promptly, and in any event within 14 days of the action having been taken, provide the public authority with its advice in relation to the impact of that action on children and young people;(c) the public authority, having due regard to the Commissioner’s advice, shall determine whether the action continues to be justified or whether it should be revoked.(9) If action of the kind described in subsection (6) continues beyond 14 days, and in relation to each such period of 14 days thereafter, the Secretary of State must—(a) lay before Parliament a copy of the Children’s Commissioner’s advice, and(b) seek approval from both Houses of Parliament for the continuation of the action.(10) If Parliament does not approve continuation under subsection (9)(b) within 14 days of the advice of the Children’s Commissioner being laid before Parliament under subsection 9(a), the relevant action automatically lapses, and any measures (including regulations, directions, orders, guidance, or recommendations made in support of or continuance of the relevant action) become legally void.(11) Where under any of the above provisions the advice of the Children’s Commissioner is sought, the Children’s Commissioner shall set out in writing his or her advice on the following matters—(a) the foreseeable impacts of any closures of schools on the affected children and young people,(b) any reasonable actions that could be taken to mitigate those impacts,(c) whether the anticipated benefits for those children of the closures identified by the public authority appear to him or her to outweigh the foreseeable impacts of closures for those children, and(d) any other matters which appear to him or her to be relevant.(12) The Children’s Commissioner is entitled to require the public authority or the Secretary of State to provide such further information, assistance, and resources as he or she considers necessary in order to set out his or her advice on a particular action and the public authority or the Secretary of State, as the case may be, shall provide such information, assistance or resources as soon as reasonably practicable.(13) For the purposes of this section—“children” means persons under the age of 18;“civil emergency” shall include any emergency situation which could constitute an emergency for the purposes of section 1 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 or which has otherwise been identified as a risk in the UK’s National Security Risk Assessment. For the avoidance of doubt an emergency need not be the subject of measures taken under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 to be a civil emergency for the purposes of this Act;“closure” in relation to schools, means any action to discourage, restrict or prevent in person attendance at those institutions or premises by children and young people who would ordinarily be entitled to attend, or any sub-group or class of such children or young people;“open for in person attendance” in relation to schools, means being open for the attendance by all of the children who would ordinarily, and but for the occurrence of a civil emergency, be entitled to attend those institutions or premises, during their normal hours of operation;“open for in person attendance” does not include the provision of online learning or other remote learning services nor the keeping of such institutions or premises open for physical attendance only for a sub-group or class of those children or young people who would ordinarily be entitled to attend;“public authority” has the same meaning as in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 save that a court or tribunal is not included for these purposes.”Member's explanatory statement
The purpose of the amendment is to enact a statutory duty to keep schools open for in person attendance in future public health and other civil emergencies, unless Parliament expressly approves, and continues every two weeks to approve, any closures.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Knowledge Schools Trust. Amendment 207 would create a statutory duty to keep schools open for in-person attendance in future public health and other civil emergencies for all pupils, not just vulnerable children and children of key workers, unless Parliament expressly approves any closures and continues to do so every two weeks.
We await the conclusion of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, which is looking at the Government’s response to the pandemic’s impact on children and young people in module 8. I will come to some of the evidence submitted to the inquiry in due course. I think it is now widely accepted that closing schools during the pandemic for all children, save for a tiny handful, was a mistake. The evidence that it had a catastrophic impact on children is overwhelming.
I am thinking of the research and analysis published by Ofsted in April 2022, when my noble friend Lady Spielman was at its head, based on inspection evidence which highlighted delays in children’s speech and language progress and a negative impact on their personal, social and emotional development. I am thinking of research published by the IFS, the Education Endowment Foundation and the Social Mobility Commission which detailed the persistent and highly damaging impacts of school closures in exacerbating inequalities and reversing progress previously made in narrowing the attainment gap. I am thinking of the irrecoverable learning loss highlighted in a report by the University of Oxford in January 2023.
I am thinking of work done by the Centre for Social Justice which showed that some children who were told to stay at home during the pandemic never reacquired the habit of attending school, with severe absences—defined as missing at least 50% of lessons—tripling compared to pre-pandemic levels. This means that 172,938 English schoolchildren were severely absent in the summer of 2024. Incredibly, the number of persistently absent children—defined as missing at least 10% of lessons—climbed to 1.6 million last summer. I am thinking of the data accumulated by Children & Young People Now about the deterioration in children’s mental health since the school closures, with 1.3 million schoolchildren being referred to mental health support services in the school year 2023-24—a 71% increase on the pre-pandemic year of 2018-19.
Some will argue that these costs, while undoubtedly high, were outweighed by the benefits of infections averted and lives saved, but children were at negligible risk from Covid-19. According to the ONS, in England and Wales, between March 2020 and October 2022, 88 deaths were registered as due to Covid-19 for children under the age of 18. That is 0.05% of the total number of Covid deaths in the same period. To put that figure in perspective, between 1 April 2019 and 31 March 2022, 644 children died from accidents.
In any event, closing schools did not make children any less likely to become infected. A study published by the Public Health Agency of Sweden in 2020 found that infection rates were no higher among schoolchildren in Sweden, which closed sixth forms but no other schools during the pandemic, than they were in Finland, which closed all schools.
What about adults? Did closing schools protect them? We are in the realm of counterfactuals here, but the evidence from Sweden is that no, keeping schools open did not mean that more people were at risk of becoming infected and dying from Covid. According to the ONS, Sweden’s overall excess mortality between March 2020 and July 2022 was negative—lower than the pre-pandemic average and far lower than in the UK, where schools were closed. In fact, Sweden’s excess mortality during the pandemic was the lowest of all European countries save Norway. Incidentally, Norway closed schools, but the Prime Minister at the time later apologised for doing so.
The costs of closing schools were almost incalculable and the benefits non-existent. It was a catastrophic error. Nevertheless, this amendment would not rule out ever closing schools again during future health, public health or civic emergencies. All it would do is make it a statutory requirement, before schools are closed, to seek the advice of the Children’s Commissioner for England on the likely impact of such action on the children and young people affected by it and to have due regard for that advice.
I note that in her evidence to module 8 of the Covid inquiry in the autumn of last year, the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, the Children’s Commissioner at the time, said that keeping schools closed while other areas of society were open during the pandemic was “a terrible mistake”. She described the Government’s approach as showing an
“apparent lack of any serious recognition of the short-term and long-term harmful effects”
of school closures, particularly on disadvantaged pupils.
In addition, this amendment would make it necessary to secure the approval of Parliament if schools were to remain closed, with such approval needing to be renewed every two weeks. That would address one of the problems that Gavin Williamson, a former Education Secretary, raised in his evidence to the Covid inquiry last autumn—namely, that the decision to close schools in January 2021 was rushed and ill-thought-out. If, in future, Secretaries of State made similar mistakes, Parliament could correct those mistakes within two weeks.
Noble Lords may be inclined to forgive the various bodies involved in the decision to close schools during the pandemic because they had limited information about the risks that Covid-19 posed, and posed to children in particular. I am not so inclined. I believe we did know enough at the time about the negligible risk that coronavirus posed to children, and the authorities involved in the decision to close schools were given ample warning about the terrible harm that closing schools would do to children’s learning, social development and mental health, with a particular impact on disadvantaged children. Whatever our view of that mistake, I think we can now agree that it was a mistake. We should take whatever steps we can to avoid making it again. This amendment would be a vital first step. I beg to move.
Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Young of Acton, who has made a compelling case. We should be ashamed, as a nation, of the way we allowed schools to close repeatedly and for protracted periods, and the almost casual way in which that was allowed to happen.
As my noble friend has set out, this amendment is hugely important but very moderate, in that it deliberately would not preclude the possibility of closing schools should it be deemed necessary but would require some process and mechanisms to be put in place that would require consultation and thought to be given. Should the closures be continued for more than a very short period, it would then require parliamentary approval to be given. My noble friend made a compelling case, so I do not need to speak for long.
I just make the final point that it is self-evident that the substance behind this amendment is more important than any of the other issues relating to schools that we have debated and deliberated upon—because none of those matters at all if schools are closed and children are not receiving an education or the social benefits of their time in school and all the other effects that my noble friend has enumerated.
I suspect that my noble friend will not be testing the will of the House on this so I really hope that the Minister, in responding, will give reassurance about the seriousness with which this is taken and that even without this as a statutory requirement, the Government will seek to observe that kind of process and ensure both proper consultation and parliamentary approval if these actions were ever to be contemplated again.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 207 to create a duty to keep schools open for attendance. The speeches that have been made excellently explained why.
I arrived in this House during lockdown, and I was shocked—genuinely, to the core—by the ease with which people in this House on all sides clamoured to close down schools. It was an extraordinary thing to witness. I could not justify it at the time and argued against it. That argument—which was a minority argument, not just put forward by me—was treated as though somehow those of us who were worried about schools closing were the irresponsible ones; whereas I think it was the other way round. I genuinely think that many of the issues that the Bill is trying to tackle—many of the real problems and challenges that we face with young people today—were created, exacerbated and turbocharged as problems during that period. Schools were closed down, which meant that adults broke the social contract with children—not for their sake but ours—and it was against all the evidence. I am very keen to hear the Minister’s response to this, even if it is not tested in a Division of the House, as I think that this will be a huge, important lesson for us to learn.
I will note a few of the problems that have already been raised. We have a mental health crisis, which we talk about regularly—as we will later and have been throughout the Bill—as though it came out of nowhere, but there is serious reason to imagine that young people’s mental health suffered during that period. But we are also talking about behaviour. A lot of teachers will tell you that once that social contract was breached, it created discipline problems because pupils were no longer in class. We have increasing numbers of parents withdrawing their children from mainstream schools. The habit of going to school was broken. We have spent a huge amount of time in this Bill talking about home-schooling, which is going up, and that is partly because schools were no longer considered necessary. I said then that if you tell pupils that truancy is okay in certain circumstances, it will be hard to get back to normal. If you say, “You shouldn’t come into school”, it will be hard to say, “You must come into school”.
Certainly, as a teacher, I lectured young people—many a time—saying, “There is nothing more important than going to school. There is nothing, nothing, nothing more important than your education”, and then suddenly as a society we said, “Oh, there are lots of things that are more important than going to school or your education”, so they learned a very bad lesson.
We will come on to talk about the problems with smartphones. What did we do when we sent all those young people home? First of all, we told them to look at screens to get lessons—a lot of the time we did not bother even supplying the lessons on the screens—and what they did was spend a lot of time on their phones. They were not out socialising. They became desocialised—anti-social.
The final reason why we have to remember that this is so important is that a cohort of young citizens was told, “If there is a problem, you stay at home, you withdraw”. I think that if we say to young people, “If you feel ill, you aren’t up to coping with going out and being part of society”, we are creating a medicalised fragility and an acceptance of illness as a reason to withdraw that have led to massive social problems. We are now paying for that with a huge welfare bill. Many young adults now lack the resilience to become economically active.
The cost of what we did was enormous and we are yet to come to terms with it. The Bill is trying to deal with a lot of the problems created by that period, and this amendment is therefore important in raising the possibility that we should not, as a default, close schools. The default should be that we do not, that we owe it to children to have their education and that schools are kept open for attendance. There has to be an extremely good reason why schools are closed, and that should be thought through deeply. As someone who was here when we were deciding, let me assure noble Lords that it was not.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I too support the amendment. We have relied through history on a presumption that schools will stay open, even in adverse circumstances such as epidemics or bombardments. But once we closed schools for Covid, we set children adrift because there was nothing in law to balance their interests against those of adults. Children stayed locked up for months, learning little even when schools made great efforts to provide online learning.
I shall not repeat what others have said, but the story of the continuing harm to children—their academic progress, social development, health and happiness—is still unfolding. Ofsted did some of the earliest work on this in autumn 2020, when my inspectors made a series of fact-finding visits to schools and published monthly reports on the impact of Covid on schools and children. They reported that children were lonely, bored and miserable—the advance warnings of the lasting problems that we now see. I spoke about this publicly a number of times, but the tide of emotion was too strong for people to hear.
With hindsight, the existence of a formal duty and a mechanism to ensure that the available evidence, such as the reports I mentioned, is considered and weighed up against the representations of the adults who work in schools, health sector representatives, and so on might have helped to focus minds. I believe that there is an opportunity here for the Minister to get ahead of potential recommendations from the Covid inquiry.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I am sorry if I sound like a dinosaur, but I will. Hindsight is always a harsh, cruel science. It makes us think, “If only we did not do this”. The evidence is very clear; as the inquiry went on, the lessons to be drawn have not yet been concluded, and the nation needs to take those lessons into its lifeblood.
We are talking about legislating for an assurance that if a huge pandemic breaks out—or, let us say, a war—we need to go to Parliament every two weeks to consult. But perhaps Parliament will be permanently shut. I would not want us to reach a stage where we have not fully learned all the lessons. I have grandchildren who, because their parents were working, were seen as those who needed to be supported at school during the pandemic. Even then, there were infections, and shutting down schools looked like protecting children. When something like Covid happens, our first look is to the vulnerable, such as children and other vulnerable people. I would find it difficult to support a measure which thinks that Parliament will always provide security.
Do you remember the Second World War? For their own protection, pupils had to be taken out of areas where the bombs were dropping pretty fast, so let us learn the lessons. We may return to this proposal, but for the time being let us support what the Bill as drafted is doing.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, my noble friends have made a compelling human, practical and democratic case for the role of Parliament in expressly approving school closures in the event of a future pandemic or public health emergency. In practical terms, as we all know and have heard in this short debate, parents and teachers see every day the impacts on those young people who missed out on significant chunks of their education and their social development when schools were closed. My noble friend Lord Brady rightly pointed out the fundamental value of schools being open as unlocking all the other good things that we expect and trust them to deliver for our children.
I hope that, when the Minister comes to close, if she does not plan to accept these amendments, she gives a clear response as to how the issues that my noble friends have raised will be dealt with in future. As my noble friend Lady Spielman said, children at that point had no balancing voice to the decisions that were made, and that feels like something we do not want to have happen again.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all the contributors to this important debate. Amendment 207, which has been degrouped and stands alone for the reasons the noble Lord has outlined, would require schools to remain open to all pupils during civil emergencies unless Parliament decides otherwise. As the noble Lord stated during Committee, closing schools has significant impacts on children, as has been reinforced by the discussion here this evening. We all agree that continuity of education is vital for their learning and well-being.
We mentioned it in Committee, but I do not think it has been stressed enough in this debate that almost all schools remained open and allowed attendance in some cases to all pupils and in others to vulnerable children and to children of critical workers. I want to put on record here today our enormous thanks to the staff who worked under incredibly difficult circumstances, with changing guidance on this on a day-to-day basis, in putting the needs of those children first. There were very few total closures, and where they happened, they were usually short-term and for operational reasons. I am sure noble Lords will remember the coverage about deep-cleaning and all the other issues that came up on a daily basis.
We know now that children generally were not at risk from Covid-19 in terms of health. That does not mean that the staff were not, but children were not as vulnerable as was first feared. But that might not always be the case in future pandemics or other whole-system emergencies, and we need to keep that at the forefront of our minds as we discuss this important issue.
I reassure the Committee that the department is committed to learning from the Covid-19 pandemic inquiry. We learned from the last pandemic that planning is at its best when it is agile, takes a whole-system approach and is responsive to the situation. The department is continuing to build its capabilities to support education in all circumstances, including strengthening remote education.
Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for her serious response. She alluded correctly to the role of many different bodies, were these difficult circumstances to happen again. However, if I am not mistaken, the one body she did not mention in her response was Parliament. Does she not accept, as is fundamental to Amendment 207, that in these circumstances a decision to close schools is so important that it should have explicit parliamentary approval within a reasonable time?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I apologise, but my assumption was that all the departments working together would keep Parliament informed of the decision. However, I do not think we can pre-empt at this time how quickly decisions will need to be made. We just need to make sure that we do not create serious disadvantage by putting in legislation something that might undermine our ability to respond at pace and appropriately in circumstances that we perhaps cannot envisage now. With that, I hope that the noble Lord feels reassured enough to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response, and I thank my noble friends Lord Brady and Lady Spielman for cosponsoring this amendment. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for her excellent contribution.
I will make just one point in response to some of the points raised. It is important to learn one lesson from our response to the pandemic. That lesson is that we are pretty poor at learning lessons from previous pandemics. We had a pandemic preparedness strategy, and we prided ourselves on being better prepared for a pandemic than almost every other country. That pandemic preparedness strategy was based on the findings of public inquiries into previous pandemics and epidemics, and it was junked within two weeks in the febrile, panicky atmosphere and the heat of politics. The compelling desire to be seen to be doing something overrode the lessons we had supposedly learned from previous pandemics and epidemics. Sweden, on the other hand, which broadly speaking followed our pandemic preparedness strategy, did far better.
I am a little reassured by the words of the Minister about responding in a more intelligent, systematic, thoughtful way next time, but once the conclusions of the Covid-19 inquiry have been published, the Government need to give some thought to how those will be conveyed and how they will be meaningfully observed by a future Government, in the absence of legislating and giving Parliament the kind of role it should have before critical decisions affecting the most vulnerable people in our society are made. With that, I will of course withdraw my amendment.
Police Reform White Paper
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, when, on 20 January, I asked the Minister when this White Paper would be published, he said that I would not have to wait too long to see the Government’s police reform proposal. I am very pleased to say that he was correct; on this occasion “shortly” did indeed mean shortly.
I think it fair to say that one of the major concerns surrounding policing at the moment is accountability. The public rightly want to know that the police are held to the highest standards. That, of course, has been thrown into the spotlight by the Maccabi Tel Aviv affair.
In her response to this in the other place, the Home Secretary talked of
“the failed experiment of police and crime commissioners”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/1/26; col. 612.]”.
I must say that I am not entirely convinced that the Government’s alternative will solve the problem they say they have identified. We know from the White Paper that control of the police is to be moved to the newly created strategic mayors, but what is the difference between this model and the PCC model? Both are elected, both are partisan, both are accountable to local people. What is more, where mayors do not yet exist, the Government have proposed putting forces under the governance of policing boards made up of local councillors. Is the Minister certain that these structures will deliver on accountability effectively?
On the structural reforms, it is vital to ensure that this process of reorganisation does not inadvertently make things worse. At the moment, there are essentially two tiers of policing structures: the national tier consisting of the British Transport Police and the National Crime Agency, and a local tier made up of the 43 territorial forces.
I am happy for the Minister to correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the White Paper creates a three-tier policing structure. At the national level we will have the national police service, then the regional police forces, and underneath those the local policing areas. Does that not mean a possible proliferation of forces, and is there a risk that this could increase bureaucracy and fragmentation, rather than reduce it as intended?
The White Paper mentions the National Crime Agency, which will be subsumed into the national police service, but there is no mention of the other national forces such as the British Transport Police and the Civil Nuclear Constabulary. Can the Minister tell the House what will happen to the British Transport Police and the Civil Nuclear Constabulary? Will they also be merged into the national police service?
As a final point, I would like to make a general observation about structural organisational change. There is an inevitable tendency for large-scale reorganisations to distract from the day-to-day functions that the bodies involved are tasked with executing. The Government will need to ensure that this does not happen and that police forces are still as focused as ever on fighting crime while the reorganisation is ongoing. There is also no guarantee that organisational reform is the solution the Government think it is, or that this will be the final structural reform of policing.
We need only look at the restructuring of other public bodies such as border enforcement or, indeed, at other parts of the United Kingdom, of which I have some personal experience. In Scotland, the formation of Police Scotland in 2013 has, if one looks at it as fairly as possible, been a mixed picture when it comes to effectiveness. So I end with a cursory warning to the Government: they must learn the lessons of past restructuring of public bodies and ensure that we do not have a never-ending process of continuous mergers, demergers and restructuring that simply sucks time, money and effort away from front-line policing.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, our system of policing is outdated—that is beyond doubt. The White Paper is right to promise radical reform, but, for victims and communities, the real tests are simple: will more crimes be prevented and will more offenders be brought to justice? Reform cannot be a top-down, money-saving exercise imposed from the centre; it must rebuild capacity, confidence and local trust. Get it wrong and communities will feel even more abandoned, widening the gap between police and public.
The plan for a new national police service and fewer, larger regional forces has merit, but real questions remain. Of course we need strong national capability for terrorism, serious organised crime, fraud and online harms that cross borders, but restructuring is a means, not an end. Experience in Scotland shows that mergers alone do not deliver better results. If design and implementation are mishandled, local connection suffers. The first priority must be to define clearly what we expect the police to do, recognising how their role has expanded, and then to provide realistic, long-term funding before redrawing force boundaries. Leadership and scrutiny, not structure, drive performance.
At present, the police are the agency of last resort for everything from children’s social care to adult mental health crises, as overstretched services retreat and leave the police to pick up the pieces. We welcome the commitment to ring-fenced neighbourhood policing, but we must ask whether the proposed model of mega-forces plus local policing areas will really empower local communities or simply add another layer of bureaucracy. Without proper funding and wider criminal justice reform, restructuring alone will not make our streets safer. Since we all agree that community policing is vital, can the Minister assure us that extra officers will be protected for visible neighbourhood work, backed by stable multi-year funding, not redeployed elsewhere when budgets tighten?
We support in principle a national licence to practice, tougher misconduct rules and stronger leadership after the shocking failures of recent years. We need officers and specialist staff with the right skills, character and integrity. Rising standards can rebuild trust but must not load more bureaucracy on to an already exhausted workforce.
The creating and purchasing of IT and data systems is sensible, but only if designed around operational needs and with sustainable funding. After all, procurement must be handled by qualified professionals so that we never again see the Home Office-driven debacle over the recent replacement emergency service radios, now running 12 years late and around £8 billion over budget.
We welcome the decision to abolish police and crime commissioners, but whatever replaces them must be representative, transparent and subject to robust scrutiny. Meanwhile, the Home Secretary proposes new targets, intervention powers, turnabout teams and the authority to dismiss chief constables. Can the Minister say what safeguards will protect the operational independence of policing, particularly from short-term political pressure? No individual, whether a PCC, mayor, council leader or Home Secretary, should have unilateral power to dismiss a chief constable. Can the Minister confirm that the Home Secretary will be bound by the same consultation rules that apply to PCCs now under Section 11A of the Police Regulations 2003?
Finally, on live facial recognition, rolling out such powerful technology before strong statutory safeguards are in place means relying on algorithms whose accuracy, bias and oversight remain, at best, disputed. If the Government move too fast and lose public trust, it may take many years to rebuild.
Liberal Democrats want a system of policing rooted in communities, fit for modern threats, accountable and trusted. We will work constructively on reforms that raise standards, but we will challenge fiercely any move towards centralisation without transparency or any attempt to treat restructuring as a substitute for leadership.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, to go to the heart of the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, this is being done for a purpose. Crime is changing: fraud and online crime are widespread, and sexual abuse, terrorism and a range of national crimes impact policing and the communities the police serve. There is a strong need to reconnect local police with local crime, such as shop theft, and with neighbourhood policing issues, such as antisocial behaviour. To deal with that, we currently have a patchwork of 43 local forces, some led by a mayor and some by a police and crime commissioner. Some mayoral areas, such as Liverpool, do not have a police and crime commissioner; others, such as Manchester, have a police and crime commissioner. In West Yorkshire, there is a police and crime commissioner and a deputy mayor appointed to report to the mayor. In the West Midlands, the police and crime commissioner runs in parallel with the mayor. New mayoralties are coming on stream in the next couple of years, and that patchwork quilt will continue to develop.
At a national level, we have no procurement organisation. We have police chief leads who deal with their local force but who are also leads for particular areas. We have a National Crime Agency, a national helicopter service and forensics. With this proposal we are trying to ensure that we give greater support to the neighbourhood policing model at a local level, and have a consistent model of leadership through the elected mayor or an elected board of councillors. That will be examined. In conjunction with the Senedd, we will look at the model for Wales. At the same time, we will look at force numbers. The proposals include a review in the next five or six months, with a chair to be appointed shortly. Its terms of reference will be to look at how we can slim down the number of forces to save money and give a regional structure.
In answer to the points from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, on accountability, there will be an official—a mayor or councillor—who is responsible for that. The Home Secretary will have the power to remove chief constables. There will be a review of the number of forces. I do not know yet what that review will show, but it will help save money and give some focus. We intend to start very shortly to establish the national service. This will initially look at IT, forensics, the helicopter contract and procurement. Is it right that 43 forces procure 43 sets of uniforms? Is it right that there are different phone systems at a local level? Those are things that we need to look at. Later, the National Crime Agency, counterterrorism and regional crime units will be brought into focus, looking at how we deal with national issues.
Are we doing that for a purpose? We are. What is the purpose? To focus on things that matter on the ground and that matter collectively, nationally, and to potentially make better efficiencies and savings in the organisation and spend for things such as procurement of vehicles and uniforms. It is important to do that, and that is the model we are looking at.
There are issues. The noble Lord asked about the British Transport Police. That is not in the model at the moment; that is a matter for the Department for Transport. Everything can be examined, but that is not on the table at the moment.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, on facial recognition, she knows that we are currently consulting on the standards and governance for it. Going back to my time as Police Minister 16 years ago, we were looking at things such as automatic number plate recognition. That was being tested in the last part of the previous Labour Government and is now a natural and automatic part of crime fighting, where you can track number plates and see who is involved with them. Going back 25 years, CCTV was a worry, but it is now an essential part of evidence gathering and crime fighting. I therefore say to the noble Baroness that we need to regulate facial recognition, but it is one of the next steps for the future of how we identify missing people and missing suspects, and we will use it to help identify how we can further reduce crime.
All this is done for a purpose. We are trying to re-energise neighbourhood policing and remove the barriers that stop the police focusing on things that matter. We are also looking at how we can organise nationally in this rapidly changing world; build capability on AI, for example, and save police time and resource; and improve standards, which again goes to the noble Baroness’s point. We have the licence to operate in these proposals and, in the policing Bill, we have proposals to vet police officers and raise standards. They are all important. It is important that we look not at where we are now but, as part of this reorganisation, at where we are going for the future, and at how we can better use AI and modern capabilities and technology to help improve police performance on the ground.
I therefore say to the noble Lord and noble Baroness, who are both my colleagues, that they have a very positive role to play in helping to design this service. However, ultimately, we cannot stay where we are. Rightly or wrongly, we think that the police and crime model has not worked efficiently and that we have too big a patchwork; we need to review and make a difference to it. It has been acknowledged for a long time that we have too many police forces. I say to both contributors that the police welcome this, from the Chief Constables’ Council through to the inspectorate and police forces across the country. We have an opportunity to redefine policing for the next 25, 30 or 40 years. This is a real opportunity to get better value for money, better performance and better efficiency, and to ensure that we meet the challenges of future crime.
Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)
My Lords, the bedrock of British policing is the office of constable. That is an office under the Crown. The Government are now going to introduce the licence to practice, given by the Government. At the same time, it appears that the Government are going to reintroduce targets for policing. The experience under the Blair Government was that policing targets distorted police behaviour and meant that, all too often, local policing priorities were ignored. The Government are also going to introduce a huge national bureaucracy in the national police service, and we read of a “hands-on Home Office” and greater powers for the Home Secretary.
Given this combination, how will the Government ensure that we will not see national diktats completely overriding local policing requirements and, particularly, that we are not going to see the police subjected to undue influence from the Home Office and the Home Secretary? I remember November 2008, when the parliamentary office of the then Member of Parliament for Ashford was searched by the police without a warrant, reportedly because of influence from Government Ministers. How are the Government going to ensure, in this centralised police service and centralised model, that there is not going to be undue political influence that relates not to the policing interests of the citizens but to the political interests of the Government?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness has great experience in this area. We have discussed this for many years, in shadow and government form. The Government are cognisant of the fact that the police service must be independent of government, have its own responsibilities, and make its own decisions around issues of arrest, suggestions about charges by the CPS and how to manage resources at a local level. Those are absolutely central, but this does not take away from the importance of the Government establishing the real areas of concern.
We are now saying that we need to have neighbourhood policing. As part of the grant, there will be an extra 13,000 neighbourhood police officers on the ground to look at the issues we think are important, such as anti-social behaviour, shop theft and a range of issues around policing in town centres. This is important for public confidence. It does not mean that we are interfering in policing. It means we are setting a number of potential targets which we think are important national and strategic issues.
On the national picture, the Police Minister is not going to be telling the head of the new policing body, “These are things I want you to do”, or “I want you to go round to X office, invade them and interfere in them”, but it is right for us to look at the strategic targets on counterterrorism, on serious organised crime and cross-border crime, and on crime that is coming into this country from the European Community, where we need to participate and co-operate. These are really important issues. It is right that the Home Secretary and the Government set these targets and some direction of travel in conjunction with the police, but still with that clear barrier between operational responsibility and overall policy setting.
The noble Baroness spoke about a police officer being an officer of the Crown. Through the licence to operate, we are trying to set a number of standards against which we check the performance of police officers so that, through the Crime and Policing Bill, we improve vetting, standards and management, and have a quicker way to remove police officers who do not meet our performance targets. These things will be done in conjunction with the police.
As I said in my opening remarks, the police have welcomed this at every level—from the inspectorate, through to the Chief Constables’ Council, to individual chief constables. I accept that that may be different for police and crime commissioners, but there is a real level of support among the police for the modernisation of the force. I hope that the noble Baroness will continue to hold us to account and that we will have this discussion as we continue.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I welcome the publication of the much-anticipated White Paper on the future of policing across England and Wales. I particularly welcome the focus on neighbourhood policing to better address everyday crime. However, the White Paper has not addressed the unfairness of policing powers being withheld from Wales compared with the other devolved nations.
Three independent commissions—the Silk commission, the Thomas commission and the McAllister commission—have recommended the devolution of policing to Wales. It might be helpful for the House to be aware that, in First Minister’s Questions in the Senedd today, the First Minister stated:
“I want to make it clear that the Welsh Government has been clear that we want policing to be devolved to Wales”.
She went further to explain that the motivation behind this is to have
“better provision for the people in Wales”.
Will the Minister join the First Minister of Wales and Welsh Labour colleagues in the Senedd who are making the case here in Westminster for the devolution of policing to Wales?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I know where the noble Baroness is coming from. We have been very clear in the White Paper that the proposals for Wales are about organisation of the delivery and not about the devolution of policing. We have taken the view that policing is intricate within the whole legal system in Wales, which includes the court service, youth justice and a whole range of other matters. In the Labour manifesto, we said we would look at the devolution of youth justice. My colleagues in the Ministry of Justice are looking at this now, but we do not think that the devolution of policing is right for Wales at this time.
We will have to explain this judgment to all Members of the Senedd and I have to explain it to the noble Baroness in this House. We think that Wales is better served by a UK-based England and Wales service which looks at the main issues of national interest, such as counterterrorism, along with the other devolved Administrations. In the Welsh context, the discussions we will have with whoever forms the Government in the Senedd after the election will be about how we make a better structure in the period after the abolition of the police and crime commissioners.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I note that when the original Statement was made in the other place, it began and ended with a reference to Sir Robert Peel. In my capacity as the co-chair of the National Police Ethics Committee for England and Wales, I probably talk more about the Peelian principles than I ever thought I was going to do in earlier life. One of those essential principles is that policing is a civilian force: it is people, the citizenry, policing themselves.
I welcome much that is in this report. It represents a way forward and I am sure that my committee will go along with it. But there are two challenges. The noble Baroness, Lady May, has already referred to one, and she gave an example of it. I will give another brief one from when we were looking at Covid in a precursor to the present committee. During Covid, the Operation Talla policing ethics committee was largely set up under my chairmanship because police chief constables were under such pressure from Government Ministers, who were announcing things, often on social media at nine o’clock at night, saying “This is now the law” when it was not. The police wanted somebody independent who could support them in the face of that kind of ministerial overreach. So I worry, as the noble Baroness, Lady May, does, about the risks of ministerial overreach and the powers being given centrally.
On the other side, on neighbourhood policing, again we are hearing all the right reassurances here, but that is so essential. During Covid, the Metropolitan Police at one point had, I think, an absence rate of about 10 times that of Kent Police, the neighbouring force. Kent Police was policing its local communities while the Met was busing people in crew buses all the way over the capital, where they were all giving each other the disease. It was not neighbourhood policing in any way, shape or form. So how can we ensure with the new policing structures that it really will be people policing locally who are that local citizenry, not somebody drawn from three counties away across a much larger area? But with that said, I appreciate what we are doing.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There is a lot in there. The main thing I can say to the right reverend Prelate is that the purpose of our policing is to have the police working with the community at a local level. That is why we have to focus on neighbourhood policing, why we have put in an additional 13,000 officers over this Parliament, and why we are on 2,500 to 3,000 currently in terms of increasing neighbourhood policing, taking people away from warranted officers doing back-room jobs into warranted officers doing front-line policing and community reassurance. That is why the basic issues, as I have said before, of shop theft, anti-social behaviour—things that happen in the high street or on the estate—should be the focus of the local police force.
How do we better deliver that? Do we look at that in a regional context? Whoever takes over this examination of regional force levels might look at a region and say, “We need to have this as a force size for this region because there’s a synergy between this city and that city and this regional area”, but underneath there is still that local neighbourhood police model. We are trying to ensure that we have local governance that is better than the patchwork we have and, at the same time, we will look at the national challenges and ensure that the Police Minister and/or the Home Secretary sets some realistic targets but does that in conjunction with the police. Ultimately, we get asked all the time in this House what we are doing about shop theft and anti-social behaviour. Some level of co-operation and ambition has to be set between the Home Office centrally and the local police forces, but they still have to operate independently and manage their resources in a way that gives them local community confidence.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful that the Minister is leaving the British Transport Police alone. In my experience, it works very well and is led by an outstanding chief constable. I may have missed it, but I am not sure he said where royal protection is going to sit in this tier of policing. It is a significant cost, particularly for a county such as Gloucestershire, where we are blessed with a number of members of the Royal Family, including one of the homes that belongs to His Majesty the King. It is a significant cost to the force.
My real concern is that raised by the noble Baroness, Lady May, about accountability. We already have an issue with police being abstracted from rural areas to do public order policing in big urban centres. If we have larger police forces, I can see that getting worse. How are we going to make sure that rural communities get the level of policing that they deserve and, importantly, that they pay for through their council tax precept, without a democratically elected leader at a very local level?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Starting with the question of royal protection, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I will not comment on that, because we do not normally comment on those issues in a public way. At some point, we will obviously make some further statements on it, but I do not wish to open that discussion now. On his comments on rural funding, we are as part of this proposal looking at reviewing the formula that currently exists within police funding. The police settlement that we announced a couple of weeks ago put significant additional resources into policing, but we recognise the need to modernise the funding formula, so part of the review that we are undertaking now will be on how we do that very task.
At a local level, there will still be somebody accountable politically for policing, but what I am trying to do, and what we are trying to do in the Home Office, is address the fact that at the moment we have police and crime commissioners, which is a patchwork model because of the advent of mayors. We have another pile of mayors coming on stream very shortly. We have some areas where there will not be a mayor, but nor will there be a police and crime commissioner in future, so we are still going to review those organisational models. At the end of this process, there will still be somebody who is accountable for policing, but not in the directly elected way, solely on police and crime issues, as the police and crime commissioner currently is.
Earl Russell (LD)
Serious organised waste crime is a national disgrace that is costing the UK economy over £1 billion a year. The Environment Agency, as a regulatory body, appears to be ill-equipped and fundamentally unable to control it. These police reforms offer a co-ordinated approach to serious organised crime, yet I can find no mention at all of waste crime in the plans, so can the Minister confirm whether it is the Government’s intention to give the new national police service responsibility for tackling organised waste crime?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Environment Agency currently has a role in managing waste crime, but I think it is important that we put some focus on the fact that it has become increasingly clear, and this is a relatively new phenomenon, that serious organised crime is behind many of the large illegal waste dumps around the country at the moment. Our effort to improve performance will involve regional and national police forces, regional organised crime units, serious crime, nationally, and the National Crime Agency, over time, to look at how better we can tackle serious organised crime on a UK-wide basis, with support from the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Serious organised crime now manifests itself in illegal waste tips and could manifest itself in drug importation, weapons importation or a range of other things. The key thing is that we have some national co-ordination of regional crime units and national units to look at serious organised crime.
Lord Walney (CB)
The reforms to public order policing in the White Paper are welcome, in particular the commitment to greater data sharing between forces to enable this. Can the Minister confirm that that will include a greater level of intelligence sharing, which was one of the gaps that I found in my review of this wider area that was presented in 2024?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I can give the noble Lord that assurance. One of the things we are trying to do is to improve the IT systems and bring them under central control. That means improving data sharing and it also means using new technology, such as AI, to improve analysis of data and to give a central lead to performance measures, to get better outcomes for the community at large.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, the Government should be commended for coming forward with bold proposals. It is clear that the existing structures are rooted in a situation from way before we had the levels of mobility, technology and new crimes that are coming forward and taking up so much of the police’s time. Having 43 police forces, therefore, is no longer fit for purpose, so it is good that the Government are showing leadership and taking bold steps. I was very struck by the cautious notes that my noble friend Lady May came forward with and, indeed, some of the dangers that lie here.
There is a lot of emphasis in the White Paper on accountability and performance, and that really is where an awful lot of the opportunities lie here. We are at an inflection point. There is the opportunity for considerable dividends from this, but there are also significant potential risks. I just ask the Minister to give a little more detail to the House about the process of determining what the eventual patchwork will look like—the size of forces, the allocation of resources and so forth. Could he also tell us how the mergers and essential integrations will be carried out without, essentially, dropping the ball? There are significant risks here but, overall, I think the Government are heading in the right direction.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Viscount’s support on this matter. In response to his question about force sizes, we will be announcing a review very shortly, which we hope will be done by the summer. That will set the template for the Government to determine ultimately how many forces there will be and how we begin the process of changing that system accordingly. When parliamentary time allows—in that time-honoured phrase—we will bring forward measures to end the role of police and crime commissioners. This will be done by the time of the next election due for electing police and crime commissioners. In the initial phase we will also look at bringing together IT, forensics and procurement into a national service, but over time. Again, this will require parliamentary legislation to bring together the National Crime Agency and other bodies, including counterterrorism, into that body as a whole.
We also have a separate paper coming forward shortly that will look at fraud, which is currently the responsibility of the City of London Police as the lead force. We will be looking at how we can improve performance on that issue as well. These will not be quick fixes but if I look three to four years ahead, police and crime commissioners will have gone, the new structures will be in place for the new forces, and there will be accountability through the mayors or councils. We will be quite well down the road of the establishment of the wider national police service, bringing in training, national services and the roles of the National Crime Agency and counterterrorism police.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, Robert Peel talked about policing by consent, emphasising public approval, but his key recommendation was crime prevention, and a primary goal was dealing with disorder. He saw that merely punishing crime after the fact was a failure. All the statistics we get are for the number of arrests that have been made or the number of crimes prosecuted. We never get the number of crimes that have been prevented. In this new White Paper, which I welcome strongly, how are we going to get to the position that we have got to in health? A good health service actually prevents people becoming unhealthy. How are we going to get that balance?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I welcome the noble and right reverend Lord’s commitment to the proposals in the White Paper. If we look at government policy as a whole, in parallel to that a great deal of work is being done by my noble friend Lady Smith on education, on prevention and on strengthening citizenship in schools. There is a need, through the Ministry of Justice, to look at improving sentencing outcomes and better performance in prisons to stop people reoffending. Through the Sentencing Bill, we are looking at a wide range of community sentences that people could be put into rather than prison. That all has the objective of reducing crime and recidivism and preventing people getting involved in crime in the first place. In this White Paper, we are again trying to have that strong focus on what needs to be done about serious organised crime at the national level. At the same time, we need to focus on building community resilience, improving neighbourhood policing, and meeting the Peelian principles that the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Manchester mentioned: the police are the public and the public are the police, and that happens at a local level as well.
On all those fronts, we are trying to prevent and reduce both crime and repeat crime, give the public confidence, improve standards in the police force and deal with significant, severe future challenges in organised crime and international issues such as internet and AI crime. I hope that reassures the noble and right reverend Lord. That is the Government’s plan, and we will no doubt be held to account on it by this House.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:20 - Division on Amendment 209 - Ayes: 176 / Noes: 132 - Amendment 209 agreed.
22:25 - Division on Amendment 216 (to Amendment 215) - Ayes: 36 / Noes: 144 - Amendment 216 (to Amendment 215) disagreed.
22:36 - Division on Amendment 215 - Ayes: 178 / Noes: 140 - Amendment 215 agreed.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes
“Allergy safety provisions in schools(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, all schools in England must—(a) adopt a school allergy and anaphylaxis policy,(b) obtain individual healthcare and anaphylaxis action plans for all pupils with allergies,(c) purchase and store in-date adrenaline auto-injectors on school property,(d) provide training for school staff on allergy awareness and administrating adrenaline auto-injectors, and(e) record any allergic reactions in the pupil’s individual healthcare and anaphylaxis action plan.(2) The Secretary of State must provide guidance to schools on the implementation of subsection (1) within six months of the day on which this Bill is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to introduce mandatory allergy safety policies for all schools in England.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to move Amendment 209 and to support the other amendments in this group. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for moving this amendment in Committee, as unfortunately I could not stay in the Chamber that night. In turn, I have taken on the amendment because my noble friend Lady Prentis has been unable to take part in this Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Ramsey and Lady Bennett, for adding their names to the amendment.
As this amendment was debated at the previous stage of the Bill, I will not repeat all the arguments. In summary, it seeks to introduce mandatory allergy safety policies for all schools in England. It marks the culmination of a long campaign in conjunction with the inspirational Helen Blythe following the tragic death of her son Benedict in 2021 when he was only five. An inquest last year concluded that Benedict’s death was avoidable. It was caused by the accidental ingestion of cow’s milk after his school failed to follow the processes and procedures in place to protect him.
I know that we have heard this before, but I want noble Lords to think about it for a moment. Outside of homes, schools are the setting where the most allergy fatalities occur. Only putting these protective measures on a statutory footing will ensure that there are adequate protections for the two children in every classroom who have allergies. Helen has worked tirelessly to establish the safety measures necessary to ensure that no child is ever lost again in such a tragic and avoidable way. I pay tribute to the work of her Member of Parliament, Alicia Kearns, to other campaign groups and to other families—I know we will hear from noble Lords about this—who, sadly, have been through these tragedies and campaigned so hard. There are also the families who live with the fear of allergic reaction and sensitivities every single day when they send their child off to school or another setting, although we are talking about schools tonight.
The current government guidelines for schools do not mention allergies. There is one line on food and one link to an anaphylaxis charity. We now know that schools do not necessarily have the adrenaline auto-injectors or any plans and training in place. The key aim of this campaign is for schools to have spare adrenaline auto-injectors, trained staff and a proper policy in place. I understand that the Government would prefer any change to be in guidance rather than legislation, as proposed here, but there are strong feelings, as I am sure the Minister and her colleagues are aware, that this would not give the guarantees necessary. Hence the debate on this amendment.
Between 1998 and 2018, 66 children died from allergic reactions. There are 680,000 pupils in schools in England who have allergies. That is one or two per classroom, according to the Benedict Blythe Foundation’s REACT report of March 2024. The Department for Education is rightly focused on the attendance crisis; children miss half a million days of education due to allergy every year. Adrenaline auto-injectors are life savers. The Benedict Blythe Foundation estimates that their rollout in English schools, plus training, would cost only £5 million.
I remember a similar campaign to put defibrillators into every school. That was done. It was, as I understand it, funded by the department, at least initially, so I hope the Minister will address the call for these adrenaline auto-injectors and proper training and policy to be put in place in schools.
I am going to come back to funding in a moment. The reason I sort of ran towards my seat in the Chamber is that I was receiving an email about the costs which I think will be relevant to how we proceed this evening.
I want to say something about the department’s approach to this matter. On 5 August last year, the department said in response to a proposal for a Private Member’s Bill by Chris Bloore MP:
“We do not believe the School Allergy Safety Bill is necessary because in the autumn we plan to bring forward proposals for supporting pupils with medical conditions, including allergies”.
No proposals or consultation were published during the autumn. The House debated this amendment on 16 September, which is almost five months ago. There have been plenty of opportunities for engagement with Helen Blythe, the other campaigners, their MPs and me, but instead a rather rushed round table was convened yesterday morning, and in the last week statutory guidance has suddenly been promised and presented to campaigners to have a look at. If there is going to be statutory guidance, I know that a number of noble Lords will have questions for the Minister, but I seek reassurance from her on two key questions, the first of which is, will the guidance make it clear that it will be mandatory for every school to have spare adrenaline auto-injectors? We will come back to the fact that there could be other treatments, but it is particularly AAIs, and spare ones, not just relying on pupils to have their own, that are critical.
On the issue of central funding, we know that school budgets are squeezed and that if schools are left to find the money, some will and some will not. That is not because they do not care, it is just because there are other priorities. The reason I was slightly running in was that I was being briefed. The current model, which is the total annual spend on additional AAIs that can be reallocated, is just over £9 million a year. The proposed model is £5 million for the total cost of rolling out spare adrenaline auto-injectors to schools nationally, and there are some additional costs for training and programme support. That would suggest a potential saving, as a result of the introduction of Benedict’s law, of £1,000,032.15. We can obviously argue about the pounds and the pence, and I understand that it is not the role of this Chamber to help government spend its money, although we can all have strong views on that; but it is critical for noble Lords to hear tonight exactly how the Government think that policy is to be funded. That has not come up in discussions with campaigners so far.
Earlier engagement would have been helpful, because we would all have had the time to work together to get the wording right on things such as the use of the injections. I understand that there are now needle-free, more user-friendly adrenaline delivery options available, and I would have been very amenable to changing the wording of the amendment, had there been earlier engagement to help us to come to a conclusion about how this amendment could be the best it possibly could be. This lack of engagement is why people are tired of politics. It takes too long to get anything done because no one steps forward quickly enough to say, “We can put this right, so let’s make this sensible change”.
My understanding is that pretty well all noble Lords, I hope, will agree with the overall thrust that we want children with allergies in school and it is right that their parents and families know that there are spare treatments—injections and other treatments—available should the worst happen. Often, the child does not know that they are going to have a reaction so it is not a question of saying that they will have their injections with them. The first time a reaction happens may well be in a school setting. It is also right to say that teachers and schools deserve proper training to be put in place.
Lord Freyberg
“(aa) ensure that the school’s allergy and anaphylaxis policy applies to any external catering provider operating on school premises and that such providers comply with the policy when preparing and serving food to pupils,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that a school’s allergy and anaphylaxis policy must also apply to external catering providers operating on school premises, ensuring that caterers follow the same procedures as school staff when preparing and serving food to pupils.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 209 goes to the heart of what families rightly expect schools to do: keep children safe. This is not a novel or radical proposal. It responds to a long-standing and well-evidenced failure of the current system. For too long we have relied on guidance and good will, yet allergy safety in schools remains inconsistent and, in some cases, dangerously inadequate. This amendment matters because it moves us from aspiration to assurance.
Children continue to experience severe allergic reactions at school. Some have died. Families live with the daily fear that a simple mistake—a contaminated surface, a misunderstanding, a delayed response—could be fatal. The tragic death of Benedict Blythe exposed not a single error but a systemic lack of preparedness. His family’s determination to prevent another such tragedy deserves our respect—and action. I also recognise the work of the National Allergy Strategy Group and its member organisations. Its position paper, produced with the Benedict Blythe Foundation, sets out in calm, forensic detail why voluntary guidance has failed.
Schools are under huge pressures, as we have heard, and without a statutory framework, allergy safety too often slips through the cracks. I understand that the Minister met the group yesterday, as we have heard, which is welcome, and I hope she will update the House on the outcome of that discussion and any assurances given.
I became involved in this issue for a simple reason: a neighbour’s child is afraid to eat in his own school canteen because of his allergy. When a child cannot safely eat at school, something is plainly wrong. That quiet daily anxiety is shared by thousands of families. Amendment 209 is proportionate and practical. Without legislation, we cannot guarantee consistent protection for all our children.
The four amendments in my name are probing. I seek reassurance on how the framework will work in practice. Amendment 210 addresses a well-known gap: external catering providers. Compliance with allergen labelling law does not in itself create a safe school environment. Unless a school’s allergy policy clearly applies to caterers and is reflected contractually, responsibility becomes blurred and children are put at risk. There must be no opportunity for third parties to argue that the school’s policy does not apply to them.
Amendment 212 extends that principle to other external providers. Schools, as we know, are busy places and well-meaning third parties can inadvertently introduce serious risk if they are not bound by the same policy. I have heard of a case where a third-party supplier brought a box of sweets into school as a gift, entirely unaware of the danger this posed.
Finally, Amendments 213 and 214 raise a practical question about costs and responsibility. Who should fund adrenaline auto-injectors, and how should supply and replacement be organised? An approach that relies on individual schools risks duplication, inconsistency and waste, particularly where children already receive these devices from the NHS. The same question arises in relation to training to use them. If the provisions in Amendment 209 become mandatory, responsibility for funding and facilitating proper training must be equally clear.
We have done this before. As the noble Baroness has said, the Government funded defibrillators in all schools, because the case was compelling and the cost proportionate. The same logic applies here. I hope the Minister will address these points directly, but, if the drafting of Amendment 209 is not quite right, I urge the Government to bring forward their own amendments at Third Reading. What matters is not ownership but outcome. We must not miss this opportunity to put allergy safety in schools on a statutory footing and prevent further, avoidable tragedies. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak briefly, having attached my name to Amendment 209, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, so powerfully introduced. I express my strongest possible support for Amendment 209 and commend the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for making important points in his amendments.
I will tell a little tale of how I got involved in this. Like most people involved in politics, I have encountered around the country parents who say that they are worried about allergies and their child at school. In my case, I was walking down a corridor of this House, past the dining rooms, and the Benedict Blythe Foundation was holding an event to highlight the issue. I was almost literally dragged in to meet Helen Blythe, who has such a tale of horror but a powerful voice to say that she does not want this to happen to any other parent’s child. That is a demonstration of where we have got to today: campaigning works and people can make a difference through their actions. I particularly want to record that.
The case has been powerfully made, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cotes, said that there may be further technical solutions to injector pens. We do not need to argue about that. It is about the idea that every school has these instruments, whatever they are, guaranteed to be in date because the law says they have to be, and has teachers and other staff confidently trained to be able to use them in a moment of crisis. That should be absolutely basic. There should never be any question that, when something goes wrong, people are asking, “What do we do?”, “Who knows?”, “Where do we find it?”, “Is the cupboard locked?” We all know that those kinds of things can happen, unless the rules are set down in black and white in legislation. That is why I very much hope we will hear positively from the Minister that the Government are prepared to put this in the Bill, whatever the fine detail, because a child’s life is so important.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 209, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, to which I have added my name. I declare my interest as a parliamentary ambassador for the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation.
In doing so, I will not see my youngest daughter this evening, who is severely allergic to peanuts, because of the rather unusual hours that our House sits. I hope I will see her tomorrow evening, Chief Whip permitting, as she will be off to school in the morning very early—and, like the rest of us, I need to sleep sometimes. No doubt she will use this opportunity to ask me to explain, not for the first time, what exactly it is that we do in the House of Lords and why so much of it is done after dark. I very much hope that tomorrow, I will be able to give her the best of all possible answers.
I will remind her that, a few months ago, on 16 September to be exact, rather late that night, along with many other noble Lords who I see sitting here in the Chamber this evening, I was adding my voice in support of an amendment designed to keep children safe—children like her, in fact, who have the misfortune to suffer anaphylactic shock if they come into contact with a small piece of peanut or some other food, as she has twice, frighteningly, done. Along with others, and with the excellent support of the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, Allergy UK, Anaphylaxis UK and the Benedict Blythe Foundation, I argued then that the Government should ensure that all schools have spare EpiPens available in case of such emergencies and that staff are trained in their use.
As the clock ticked towards midnight that night, my noble friend the Minister responded as follows:
“The measures to support children with allergies proposed in this amendment could be achieved without requiring primary legislation; we will consider how we might take them forward”.—[Official Report, 16/9/25; col. 2187.]
Tonight, I am hopeful that this is precisely what has happened, and that my noble friend the Minister will stand up and confirm that the Government will shortly be issuing statutory guidance setting out in detail how all schools will be required to properly protect children with allergies, and, in particular, that noble Lords will be assured that there will be statutory guidance requiring schools to have effective allergy policies in place, to have adrenaline devices such as auto-injectors available, and that staff will receive mandatory training on the use of adrenaline devices such as auto-injectors. In which case, I will be able to tell my daughter that these late nights can achieve remarkable things, and that it is precisely because of the way the House of Lords works that this has been achieved.
After all, we are talking about an amendment which has strong support across the House, led by the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. It is supported by my noble friend Lady Kennedy, among others, who has professional expertise in the subject, and has been encouraged by those impressive charities. To give due credit, we are talking about a Government who listen to the evidence and act accordingly, assuming that I have understood correctly what my noble friend the Minister will announce shortly.
I would still prefer to see my daughter in the evenings more often, but I am happy not having been able to do so on 16 September last year and this evening if the House acts to protect children at school with allergies. She will be happy too, and, in due course, so will thousands of parents and their children at risk of anaphylaxis. What an honour it is to be a Member of this House which can change lives so effectively.
Lord Remnant (Con)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, and particularly Amendment 209, in the names of my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes and other noble Lords who have added their names.
I have a granddaughter, now aged 10, who from birth has been allergic to dairy, eggs and nuts. Through a lengthy medically managed programme she has been able to reduce substantially her reaction to dairy and eggs, but remains extremely vulnerable to peanuts and sesame. She carries an EpiPen, although mercifully she has not yet had cause to use it. These allergies remain a constant concern to her and her parents. Yet I regard her as being one of the fortunate ones. She is conscientious and very aware of what she can and cannot eat, but the inherent risks are heightened away from home, whenever, say, she is at a friend’s house or in a restaurant. Most importantly, she attends a school which has adopted and follows the policies and procedures stipulated by Amendment 209.
I regard these as minimum standards to be followed by schools. They surely should be regarded as best practice. However, it appears that, despite allergy being the most chronic childhood condition in the UK, my granddaughter’s school is in the minority in specifying these protections and our legislation lags behind global comparators. This cannot be right. During term time, children spend most of their waking hours at school. Schools act in loco parentis, with all the legal duties of care that that entails, but current statutory medical guidance, as we have heard, is not specific to allergies. It is vague and open to interpretation. It has created a worrying gap in allergy safeguard provision. Even were this adapted specifically to address allergies, it would remain just guidance. Unless the Minister can assure us otherwise, it would not be mandatory and it is unlikely to be comprehensive, so it would not achieve the step change required. The adoption of Amendment 209, on the other hand, would go a long way towards filling this gap.
I am also fully supportive of Amendments 210, 212, 213 and 214 in the name, principally, of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. Amendments 210 and 212 in particular would ensure that external providers, including catering providers, follow a school’s allergy and anaphylaxis policy. If we are sensibly to mandate schools to have such a policy, for compliance with which they will be held responsible, we should give them the tools to enforce that policy.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, it was 19 years ago that I had the privilege of chairing the Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry into allergy for this House. I remind the House that, even then, we were saying that half of those who died from an allergic reaction had not had any previous serious reaction, and we highlighted the need for adrenaline auto-injectors and the fact that they were not being used effectively. The failure of pens was for several reasons, usually that the injection was not given intramuscularly, there was poor training or pens had passed their expiry date, were being used too late in a reaction or were not available at the time of the reaction. The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, and of my noble friend Lord Fryberg are incredibly important and are 19 years overdue. We really cannot carry on like this.
There is guidance on the use of adrenaline auto-injectors in schools from the Department of Health in 2017, but it states:
“This guidance is non-statutory”.
It goes on to say:
“The Children and Families Act 2014 requires governing bodies of English schools to make arrangements for supporting pupils with medical conditions”.
The problem is, of course, that the management of allergies is not statutory, and children present with a very wide range of medical conditions, but there are not that many that present the medical emergency that an allergic reaction can present.
The summary states that schools are not required to hold adrenaline auto-injectors. If they do not have one when a child is collapsing, even if the child has their own with them, the risk of that child’s death goes up significantly. The guidance is also very clear that the MHRA expert group from 2020 said that adrenaline should be administered at the first sign of a reaction, and that the risk of delay outweighs harm. I suggest that the cost of delay is absolutely massive and must be properly considered in terms of the cost of providing these pieces of equipment that can be stored, and incorporating training, as we have already heard.
The guidance is very clear: if in doubt, give adrenaline and, if there is no improvement after five minutes, give another dose. Children’s schools must have the ability to recognise allergy wherever that child is and react rapidly, because five minutes is not very long. You cannot run from one side of a school to another to try to find somebody who knows what to do because, by then, tragically, the child may have had a cardiac arrest.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendments 209, 210 and 212 and declare my interest as the chief operating officer of the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, the UK’s food allergy charity.
While some schools manage food allergies well, too many do not and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, expertly put it, with around two children in every classroom living with a food allergy, and one in five food-related allergic reactions occurring at school, the absence of clear policies and consistent staff training continues to place children at risk. These failings also affect attendance and undermine inclusion.
Amendment 209 seeks to address these long-standing gaps. If it is accepted by the Government, that would represent a fitting tribute to five year-old Benedict Blythe, who tragically died from anaphylaxis at school, and to his mother Helen, whose tireless advocacy has brought us to this moment.
Earlier this week, as others have said, Helen Blythe and representatives of national allergy charities met with the Minister for early years to discuss the urgent need for a robust statutory approach to allergy management in schools. The response and commitment from the Minister were extremely welcome and I hope that, tonight, those commitments from my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern will be confirmed from the Dispatch Box. At the outset, I shall list quite a few points where confirmation and clarification are needed, so, if my noble friend is unable to cover all these points today, will she commit to write to me and place a copy in the Library for all noble Lords to see?
For the benefit of campaigners, allergy charities, clinicians and parents and carers of food-allergic children following this debate, I would be grateful if my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern could confirm the Government’s position on a number of points. First, will my noble friend confirm that it is the Government’s intention to address the long-standing and well-evidenced gaps in the management of allergies in educational settings, and that this will be taken forward through statutory guidance?
Secondly, will my noble friend confirm that such statutory guidance will require schools to have a whole-school allergy policy, and ensure that all staff on site receive training in allergy awareness, risk reduction and the recognition and emergency management of anaphylaxis, and that school will be required to hold accessible, in-date, spare adrenaline auto-injectors on site for emergency use?
Will my noble friend also confirm that the Government intend to ensure leadership and accountability for implementation of such a policy, including the expectation that school governors will take a leadership role and that Ofsted will be asked to take allergen management into account in its inspection framework?
On emergency response, will my noble friend confirm that, alongside a requirement to hold spare, in-date auto-injectors, the existing 2007 guidance on the use of AIs in schools will be revised to make it explicit that, where an adult suspects anaphylaxis, they should call 999 immediately and administer the AI without delay, whether with a prescribed or a spare device, and that administration of the second AI will not cause any harm and may be life-saving?
Will my noble friend also confirm whether the Government intend to bring forward an SI to enable schools to take advantage of the new adrenaline delivery devices, including nasal sprays, as they become available?
With regard to policies and training, I support Amendments 210 and 212 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. Will my noble friend confirm that training and policies are intended to apply to all staff on site, including external providers operating on school premises, and in particular school caterers? Food provision remains a significant risk area for pupils with food allergies. Effective management requires clear systems, and it should be a shared school responsibility.
Lastly, the Bill makes provision for a unique number for every child in England to support the sharing of information for safeguarding purposes. Is allergy data being considered as part of the pilot project in Wigan testing the use of the NHS number as a unique identifier in children’s care? If not, will my noble friend consider allergy health information within that work? Will she facilitate a meeting for me and relevant representatives of charities, including school caterers, to explore this issue further with colleagues in the relevant departments?
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, for moving this amendment, and I associate myself with the excellent speeches made in support of it and the other amendments in the group. I also associate myself with the high praise for the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, for which I have the highest regard, and for the Benedict Blythe Foundation and the remarkable dedication of Helen Blythe. Her son Benedict was five years old when his milk allergy took his life. A plan was in place, but it was not followed.
My son was five years old when we first discovered that he had a severe nut allergy. We had no idea—there were no signs or indications. He suffered a severe anaphylactic shock and we did not know what was happening to him. His life was saved by our extraordinary good fortune that it took place on a cruise and immediate hospital-level treatment was available. I am profoundly struck that his life was saved by being in proximity to the crucial care that he needed.
For the most severe, like my son, auto-injectors are only a means of providing enough time to get necessary hospital treatment. At that time, if he had had such an attack in school, it is most likely that he would not have survived. Some 30% of children affected have their first reaction at school, the most frequent location outside the home setting. While progress has been made in some schools, as the Benedict Blythe Foundation research has shown, school preparedness for dealing with allergies is dangerously and tragically low, as evidenced by the fact that half of all schools have no spare auto-injectors. However, I stress that auto-injectors are not enough; it is strategy, training and other elements that will ensure that lives can be saved.
The amendment proposes a sensible and comprehensive approach to create the right capacity and capability in all schools. I hope the Minister will provide reassurance that the Government are committed to a mandatory and comprehensive allergy safety policy framework, as set out in the amendment, and either are open to accepting the amendment or can provide details of how these objectives can be achieved.
Lord Storey (LD)
Every child must be safeguarded and safe from harm when they attend school. I remember, 15 years ago, what were called EpiPens. I had never heard of them until a parent came into school and told me about her child who had a particular allergy. We stocked EpiPens—one in each classroom, clearly labelled—and we trained the staff. I remember the staff being fearful, so we stabbed a grapefruit in those days to train ourselves. We did that on our own initiative because we understood our duty of care, but children’s lives cannot depend on individual schools taking the initiative. This must be guaranteed by government policy.
The current system, I am sorry to say, is a postcode lottery. Some children are fortunate to attend schools that are honest about what they can guarantee. Others face confusion, inconsistency and danger. Children have learned from the age that they first enter school to bring their own food to school, to every meal, and to self-administer treatment, because the adults around them are untrained and unequipped.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition understand how crucial allergy safety is in schools, and access to adrenaline auto-injectors is pivotal. Centralising and co-ordinating policy across education establishments is a much-needed step that would standardise current voluntary safety measures such as the provision of AAIs and provide a universal level of access to all students. That is a principle in Amendment 209, referred to as Benedict’s law, that we support.
It would be remiss of me not to remind noble Lords: half of schools do not stock a spare auto-injector; 70% of schools do not have the recommended measures of spare pens, training and allergy policies, and individual healthcare plans in place; and 20% of fatal food anaphylaxis reactions in school-aged children or young people in England happen in schools.
This is a critical issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said that it was “basic”, the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, referred to it as “best practice”, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said that the cost of delay is “massive”. They are entirely correct.
We also support the principle behind the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. It makes sense that those contracted on school premises should predominantly follow the same policies as the schools themselves. This is all the more important when catering firms are involved, given the obvious heightened risk of allergic reactions to food.
While there should, as always, be an appropriate analysis of the impact on both the taxpayer and the affected firms, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition understand the great importance of these measures. We hope, as many noble Lords have hoped tonight, that the Government see the merit of focusing on this and agree that schools should be safe places for everyone—and that should be non-negotiable.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, in concluding this group, I start by paying tribute to those who have campaigned so hard on school allergy safety, especially Helen and Peter Blythe, Tanya and Nadim Ednan-Laperouse, my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley and other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, in introducing Amendment 209 this evening. The tragic deaths of Benedict Blythe and Natasha Ednan-Laperouse are a stark reminder of the dangers of anaphylaxis. We have heard other examples of that this evening, including the personal experiences of noble Lords.
Amendment 209 seeks to introduce mandatory allergy safety provisions for all schools, including policy adoption, individual healthcare plans, adrenaline auto-injectors and staff training. As stated in Committee, schools have existing duties, under Section 100 of the Children and Families Act 2014, to make arrangements to support pupils with medical conditions including allergy.
However, I am pleased to set out the Government’s plans to transform allergy safety in schools and take forward the campaign for Benedict’s law. Before September 2026, we will issue new statutory guidance and we will consult on it imminently. For the first time it will put specific focus on allergy safety alongside other medical conditions. Through statutory guidance, we will require schools to have a dedicated allergy safety policy. This will set out how the school will manage the risks of allergy and anaphylaxis. It will emphasise the importance of whole-school awareness and understanding, grounded in training for all staff. As this training will be set out in statutory guidance, schools will be expected to comply with it.
Schools need to be conscious and active in managing the risks of allergy, and they need to take steps to minimise the risk of pupils coming into contact with their known allergens. We will be clear that pupils with allergy must be fully included in the life of the school, with arrangements to support them on external trips and visits. Our guidance will set out that a school’s allergy safety arrangements need to be managed actively, with a named governor and senior leader. The reports of incidents, near misses and safety drills will provide evidence to review and improve policies.
But no precautions can be perfect. In many cases, as noble Lords have said, children with no history of allergy will have their first reaction while at school, so it is essential that schools have robust emergency response procedures. While many of those with severe allergies carry their own prescribed adrenaline auto-injectors, schools are able to purchase their own as spares. Many do so, but our statutory guidance will be clear that we expect schools to do so.
This is an important responsibility for schools. Two adrenaline auto-injectors can be purchased at a high street pharmacist for around £150, and many schools already stock them as part of their existing allergy safety arrangements. They must take ownership of these life-saving devices. We are working with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that schools are able to purchase spares as easily and cheaply as possible.
Strong school-wide policies are essential, but it is equally important to capture key information for each child or young person. Our guidance will be clear that every child whose medical condition requires active management by their school should have an individual healthcare plan which specifies the arrangements that will be put in place. This includes those with allergy.
As others have mentioned, yesterday my colleague, the Minister for Early Education, met sector experts, including members of the National Allergy Strategy Group, the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation and the Benedict Blythe Foundation. We have invited them to help us co-produce our new statutory guidance. We are working quickly so that we can consult and issue new guidance as soon as possible. For that reason, let me be clear that we do not disagree with the principle, the objectives or the detail of the noble Baroness’s amendments, but we are already introducing robust measures to address those concerns.
Amendments 210 and 212, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, would require schools to include detailed allergy provisions in contracts with external caterers—policy compliance, allergen information sharing, measures to prevent cross-contamination, and actions if an allergic reaction occurs. I recognise the noble Lord’s determination to secure robust safeguards. However, prescribing contractual content through primary legislation is far too inflexible. Requiring catering providers to comply with each school’s individual allergy policy would be enormously bureaucratic and difficult, probably driving up costs to schools. It is also unnecessary. I understand the concern that caterers should be clear about the requirements to protect children with allergies, but they must already provide allergen information and must manage allergens safely as set out in food regulations and in Food Standards Agency guidance.
Amendments 213 and 214, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, would make the NHS responsible for providing adrenaline auto-injectors to schools. The NHS already provides devices to individuals on prescription, and regulations permit schools to purchase spare adrenaline auto-injectors, as I have already outlined. As I have also said, that is an important responsibility for schools, and they must take ownership of these life-saving devices. We will continue to work with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that they can be secured as easily as possible.
Turning to my noble friend Lady Kennedy, I believe I have covered the majority of the questions she asked, but I understand that I have not covered all of them. I undertake to write with anything that has not been covered in my response so far.
I hope noble Lords will recognise the considerable and important progress that has been made, thanks to the engagement of the department and my honourable friend the Minister for Early Education with campaigners who have, as we have heard, made an enormous difference to children. Everybody in this Chamber should be pleased to have ensured that, and I commit the Government to—
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
I get the impression that the Minister may be about to finish so, before she does, may I just ask her two very specific questions? First, I do not think she has addressed the funding point. If I have missed it, I apologise, but please could she clarify whether the Government intend to back up the statutory guidance they propose by September this year with central funding of those spare pens, training and everything else? Secondly, as I understand it, the Minister said that the draft guidance states that schools “can” purchase AAIs. That is not the same as saying that schools must have spare AAIs. Is the Minister open to changing that wording, or could she just clarify the position? Schools must hold spare AAIs. It is of critical importance, for the reasons we have heard.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
On the second point, I said that schools are able to purchase their own spares. Many do so, but I said that our statutory guidance will be clear that we expect schools to do so. The statutory guidance will say that schools should have those spares.
On the point about funding, no, I am not saying that there will be centrally provided funding. I was identifying, by talking about both the cost to schools of buying the adrenaline auto-injectors from high street pharmacies, for example, and the ongoing work with the Department of Health and Social Care, how we will ensure that, by schools using their funding, as half have already done, those auto-injectors are available as cheaply and easily as possible.
I just reiterate, though, that I did say that training would be part of the statutory guidance, as well as an expectation that that training happens across the school.
On that basis, I hope noble Lords will feel reassured and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. We have paid tribute to the campaigners; many of them will be watching these proceedings tonight. I thoroughly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, that the House works best when we have the kind of debate we have had on this, and that, exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said, what matters is not ownership but outcomes.
I think we were all moved by the personal examples that have been shared and the family members who are deeply affected by this. I thank the Minister for the assurances she has been able to give about a mandatory policy and training. I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that this is 19 years overdue and that there are undoubtedly significant costs of delay in treatment for pupils.
Although the Minister has been able to help on the first point, about spare AAIs—although I wait to see the wording—I know, as we all do, that school budgets are under pressure and that when it comes to government commitments without funding there is a danger that they do not happen. The point is that the schools which are committed to doing this will find the money and those for which this is not a priority—they are not going to match the guidance—will find a way to say that they do not have the money to do it. That is a postcode lottery for our young people.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
Before the noble Baroness tells us what she is going to do, I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, to find out what he is going to do with his amendments.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
I am sorry for that cliffhanger. I am still learning about procedure after six and a bit years.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
May I just prolong the cliffhanger slightly? I reiterate that I was clear that this is statutory guidance which all schools should follow unless there are very exceptional reasons why they do not. The point that the noble Baroness makes about the postcode lottery is not right because all schools will be covered by this statutory guidance covering all the issues that I identified.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
I take the Minister’s point. I understand what she is saying and I know that schools will want to follow statutory guidance. But we have heard the example of the defibrillator rollout: the department was able to find the money. We are talking about money that I think the Government would be able to find. Without government funding behind a key policy, schools will have to think about whether or not they do it.
The other point is that we have heard powerful speeches from the Minister’s own Back Benches this evening, all of which have been in favour of this amendment. I think that the way this House works best is to test opinion. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House on this amendment.
Baroness Barran
“Prohibition of smartphones during the school day(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, all schools in England must have a policy that prohibits the use and possession of smartphones by pupils during the school day.(2) Any policy implemented under subsection (1)—(a) may provide for exemptions from the policy, or for an alternative policy, for sixth form students, in so far as such exemptions or alternative policies do not negatively impact upon the wider policy,(b) may provide for exemptions for medical devices,(c) is to be implemented as the relevant school leader considers appropriate, and(d) may, where implemented by a boarding school or residential school, include appropriate guidance for the use of certain devices during other periods in which their pupils are on school premises, subject to such policies safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in accordance with relevant national standards.(3) For the purposes of this section—“smartphone” means a mobile telephone that is able to connect to the internet and whose main purpose is not the support of learning or study;“the school day” includes all time between the start of the first lesson period and the end of the final lesson period.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause requires schools to ban the use of smartphones during the school day.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The decision before us this evening in relation to Amendment 215 is whether we support the Government’s recent policy shift to tighten the guidance to schools about phones or whether we need to amend the Bill to prohibit the use and possession of smartphones in schools. On these Benches, we are absolutely clear that it is the latter. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Cass, who all bring exceptional expertise in this area, for adding their names to my amendment.
I will cover three points in my remarks. First, we need to be absolutely clear what we are trying to achieve with this amendment. As we heard in the debate on my noble friend Lord Nash’s Amendment 94A, on access to social media for under-16s, we need to reset our own and our children’s relationship with smartphones and social media, as smartphones are so often the gateway drug to social media. This is essential given everything we know about the impact of extensive screen time on a child’s ability to learn, to concentrate and to get a good night’s sleep, and on their mental health, as well as the harms that children are exposed to online. Resetting social norms is something our schools can play a crucial part in.
We should be in no doubt about the nature of the harms created by having smartphones in schools, and indeed on the bus, to and fro: photos taken without consent and then sexualised via a nudification app, and that are then traded online; exposure to live-streamed content, including children watching a live suicide on the bus home; and, of course, endless potential for distraction from learning. These harms do not happen with dumb phones; they are specific to smartphones.
The second point that it is important to stress tonight is that head teachers want a ban on smartphones. This sends a clear message about the harms smartphones can cause, it sends a clear message to parents and, crucially, it will result in consistency across our schools. The flexibility inherent in the new government guidance is portrayed positively as giving schools and communities discretion to adopt an approach that suits them best. But the reality for many school heads is that the exercise of that discretion is difficult, and it leaves schools facing off against pupils and parents. That seems to be why the “no see, no hear” policies have taken hold. It is a compromise to placate a vocal, emotional, and at times physically challenging minority of pupils and parents.
Thirdly, we do not believe that the Government’s approach of introducing stronger guidance will work, any more than the guidance we introduced when we were in government did. The entirely predictable result of leaving it to teachers to decide how they wish to tackle mobile phone misuse is that the pupils and schools that need help with behaviour and learning the most will be among those least well positioned to help themselves. By contrast, a statutory ban would provide all schools with a shield against pupil and parental complaints.
Guidance leaves heads exposed to parents who disagree, as it is their decision to make their school genuinely smartphone-free rather than down to legislation. Heads have reported that some parents can become very vocal and at times physically violent. It leaves heads having to spend considerable time and energy on deciding on a policy and then implementing it and convincing parents. As one head reported recently in the Times:
“I’m not exaggerating. I’ve spent hundreds of hours on this”.
When we were in government, we introduced guidance which set clear expectations about the use of phones in schools, but we were also clear that if it was not effective, we would consider moving to a full ban. In reality, after testing this approach in practice, only 11% of schools have effective bell-to-bell bans, so the time has come for legislation to support schools to implement a ban. My amendment would mean that smartphones specifically would not be allowed in schools except for limited exceptions for medical requirements, for sixth forms and for boarders in the evenings, for all the reasons that the House is well aware of. Of course, all phones need to be absent during the school day, but dumb phones or Balance Phones do not have the same addictive properties and do not create any of the problems that we have heard about from head teachers.
We do not support Amendment 216 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. It would allow smartphones into the classroom for children with special educational needs and disabilities and would undermine the whole approach. Of course, these children should have access to the assistive technology they need, but not via their personal smartphone.
The point of principle that noble Lords need to decide this evening is whether we want to leave the burden of trying to manage phone use in schools to head teachers or whether we want to take this opportunity to give children their childhood back and start to get smartphones out of their lives. We need to be ambitious. We need to be clear-sighted. This is a prize worth fighting for. I beg to move.
Amendment 216 (to Amendment 215)
Lord Addington
“(ba) may provide for exemptions for assistive technologies that are deemed necessary for a student’s education,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add assistive technologies that are necessary for students' education, to the list of exemptions that can apply to the prohibition of smartphone use and possession.
Lord Addington (LD)
This is fairly straightforward. There is a bit of passion being stirred up and a nice pace, so let us not delay too long. The reason I am suggesting that we include smartphones as assistance to those with special educational needs is because smartphones fit in your pocket and are a great way of carrying technology with you.
Chris McCausland, who noble Lords have probably seen on “Strictly Come Dancing”, did a lovely little programme showing all the assistance you can get if you are blind that can be loaded on to your phone. I, as a dyslexic, have good voice-operated systems that I can carry with me everywhere and use because they are on my phone. It gives you personal independence. It means that you can operate these systems, and we have only just started to scratch the surface. If there is another personal device that does it, I am all ears. I do not know whether there is another one.
You can block social media so the phone itself can be used for other purposes. It is a plastic and metal box that carries technology; it is not the devil’s passport. If we use it correctly, we can change it so that it actually supports and gives independence to a person who otherwise has it restricted from them. I ask all noble Lords in this Chamber: do we want to give independence to those who have disabilities?
This amendment would not solve everything, but it would address certain things. It would make sure that pupils could interact with lessons more easily. If they are restricted to a computer in front of them, that may well be better, but, for instance, they will not be able to take notes quite as easily—as in my case—or communicate quite as easily. The Carers Trust has been in touch to say that it does not like the proposal and would like an exemption for some of the people it is dealing with. This is moving very fast—there might be other groups.
I appreciate what the noble Baroness is trying to do but let us not be too rigid and throw the baby out with the bathwater. Technology is a way of helping to give independence, allowing people to access education. Please accept the fact that an absolute ban has downsides—downsides we can avoid. I beg to move.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for a very moving speech there, but I will address his point directly.
This amendment does not object to a child having a basic phone for safety. My plucky 11 year-old son travels to and from school every day with a big rucksack and a violin on the Circle line and the Jubilee line, come rain or snow. It worries the hell out of me every time he leaves the house, and I am not happy until he is back home. That is why he has a Nokia dumb phone in his pocket, so he can call me if he needs to. I confess that he sometimes plays “Pong” on a black and white LED screen when he is bored, but that does not damage his frontal cortex or bring him into touch with predators. He does not have a smartphone with all its nasty algorithms. Until they invent such a box as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, quite reasonably described, that is what a smartphone contains.
I do not, for instance, allow my son to go to the local pub, the Westbourne, where he might be beaten up. For the same reason, I do not let him on Instagram, with all its bullying. I do not allow him to go to the Ministry of Sound—wonderful organisation though that is—because he will be confronting sexual predators. For the same reason, I do not let him on Snapchat. I do not give him methamphetamine—whizz—or Es, because they are addictive and would mess with his brain, as do TikTok and YouTube reels. I do not, for instance, allow him on X, where he might see internet filth. For the same reason, he is not allowed to go to Soho to watch peep shows.
Toxic digital platforms are designed for adults and are engineered for addiction, fraudsters and predators—and, I am afraid, they are screwing with too many of our children’s brains. A simple device that makes calls and sends texts poses none of these challenges. That is what children should have. That is why schools should be in a regulatory position to ban smartphones during school hours.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I have spoken on this issue so many times in this House that I am not going to repeat myself—really—except to say that I have never taught in a school that allows mobile phones either in school or on the way to school. I have taught in some of the highest-performing schools—non-selective state schools that are some of the highest performing for pupil progress in the country—and I do not think the two are unconnected.
We do not need mobile phones in schools. They distract and they disturb. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that I am sure we can take a smartphone, take out all the stuff the student needs and give it to them for the day. We do it with laptops for the pupils all the time. We do not need them on the way to school. It is a huge irony that we pack our children off to school with many hundreds of pounds-worth of equipment in their pocket and then worry about their safety. As part of a strategy to build a safe environment for our children online, the first step is very simple: ban phones from schools entirely.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 215 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and Amendment 216 in the name of my noble friend Lord Addington, who has great experience in matters concerning children with special needs, so I fully support his amendment. I shall speak on Amendment 215 on behalf of my daughter, who is a secondary school teacher and has considerable experience regarding the issue of children using smartphones in schools. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that she is fully in favour of this amendment, like so many other teachers up and down the country. Her school has a phone ban and she tells me that it works really well, as it allows teachers to concentrate on lessons and not spend valuable time policing the use of smartphones during the school day.
It works also because it is a great discipline for children to resist the temptation to access their phones during school and lesson time. On the other hand, I have spoken to teachers at education conferences whose schools do not have a ban on smartphones, and they long for that change. They have told me that they spend a great deal of time preventing pupils using phones instead of concentrating on teaching. They express their frustration at how some children cause disruption and are offensive to teachers who tell them to put their phones away. Often, pupils are distracted or bullied and harassed on social media and messaging apps. Girls especially are very intimidated by boys sharing upskirt videos of them and making offensive sexual suggestions. These are some of the reasons why Amendment 215 is asking for a ban on the use of phones by children during school hours.
On arrival at school, pupils will simply be asked to leave their phones in a secure place until the end of the school day. In the event of an emergency at home, the school can be contacted and act on the situation appropriately. Pupils can be taken out of class and given back their phone to contact their home if necessary. Actually, I believe that if a child were to receive an upsetting emergency message on their phone in the class or playground, it could be very traumatic for them to deal with. My daughter told me of a case of one of her pupils whose father passed away unexpectedly. The school was contacted and the child was taken out of class and received pastoral care to help them deal with the distressing news and take in the devastating loss.
We know that the use of smartphones can be addictive and cause mental stress, depression, fear, anxiety and harm, which can be very difficult to deal with, especially in the school environment. Incidentally, this issue very much runs parallel with the current move to ban children under the age of 16 from accessing social media accounts, which I very much support. It was great to see that Spain announced today that it will bring in an under-16 ban, too. Hurrah!
I urge the Government to accept these amendments, give clarity and make a general policy across all schools, state and private, that phones are banned, except in the circumstance of children with special needs, as highlighted in my noble friend Lord Addington’s Amendment 216. Let us give our children some respite from social media, YouTube and messaging apps during school hours; let us get away from the distractions and harms they currently cause to our children and help those children concentrate on their special education. Because, as my mum always says, “Education is your passport to life”.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 216. The amendment to ban mobile phones in schools was introduced to safeguard children’s well-being, which is a principle that I wholeheartedly support. But it is therefore imperative that we consider all the ways that a mobile phone can be vital for a child’s well-being and security.
I was recently contacted by a mother of a diabetic child who relies on a mobile phone app to monitor her glucose level and manage insulin treatment. Without that device, her child would be at serious risk. For students who depend on assistive technology, whether for communication, medical monitoring or learning support, a mobile phone is not a distraction: it is a lifeline. We must ensure that, in our efforts to protect children from the harms of excessive screen time, we do not inadvertently endanger those who rely on these technologies to participate fully and safely in school life. This amendment provides the necessary clarity and protection for vulnerable students and I urge the House to support it.
Incidentally, I was contacted today by young carers who need access to a phone because of their caring roles. One young carer said, “I’m not going to go into school, then, because I’ll be too worried that something might happen to the person I am looking after”. So there are nuances to this issue and one of the ways of dealing with them is by supporting the amendment that was moved by my noble friend Lord Addington.
On the general issue, whether it is teachers, parents or grandparents, everybody has concerns about mobile phones in school. It is interesting to remember what the head of Ofsted said. He said that they had played a part in the ongoing scandal of poor school attendance,
“whether by chipping away at attention spans and eroding the necessary patience for learning, or by promoting disrespectful attitudes and behaviours”.
He also linked mobile phones in schools to the massive increase in permanent exclusions—which, in 2023-24, were up to a record 10,885 children and young people permanently excluded from school—and to the increase in the number of suspensions. I do not know whether they are a direct result of having mobile phones in schools, but clearly Ofsted’s chief inspector thinks that that is the case.
I think a ban will have to be agreed, but I hope that, when this comes back on ping-pong, the Government might clarify some of the ways that we deal with these exceptions, because there are issues as well. If, for example, a child or young person needs their mobile phone to monitor their glucose levels, how will that phone be handed in or given back? Will there be a register for that? It all needs to be thought through but, yes, we need to ban mobile phones in school.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I too added my name to Amendment 215 but, like my noble friend Lord Hampton, I have spoken on this issue quite a lot and anyone who would like to know my view can find it in Hansard—reams of it.
However, I want to ask the Minister a few questions about the Government’s current position. I was delighted to hear the Prime Minister declare that no one thinks you should have phones in schools and that schools are expected to be phone-free by default. I am particularly pleased because that is a shift in government messaging: in the last two debates on this issue, I was told that the guidance was sufficient as it is and that 90% of secondary schools already have policies in place that work.
I am delighted, but I want to understand what recycling the guidance is going to do to change the experience on the ground for children. Only 15% of children say that phones do not affect their lessons in some way. How will the new guidance help?
My second question is around Ofsted inspections. Ofsted inspects about a quarter of schools each year, so each school gets between three and four years between inspections. I would like to hear from the Minister because I am concerned that, if we pass this today and stick with the Government’s guidance, there are some schools that will not be inspected for another four years. We have a problem in the real world. We will have new guidance, but with a system that will be checked at some time in the future. I am worried that many things could happen in that gap.
Thirdly, I looked at the government website, where Ofsted’s national director of education wrote:
“If a school chooses not to follow the guidance, inspectors will continue to explore the impact of mobile phones on pupils’ behaviour, safety and wellbeing”.
Can the Minister state under what circumstances not having a bell-to-bell restriction would be appropriate, given what the national director of education has said?
Finally, I hope to give the noble Lord, Lord Addington, a little support. I have long advocated for a bell-to-bell restriction, for support for schools to store phones during the day, and for exemptions for children, carers and even for pedagogical reasons—teaching about phones—and for pupils who need assistive technology. But this has taken so long, and we cannot let the exemptions undermine the need to act. If this goes through tonight, will the Government come back with something that is sensitive to these exceptions but does not undermine the purpose of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran? We cannot have an expectation of a phone-free school day, an inspection regime that means that, even if we arrive on this today, some schools will not have seen it in four years’ time, and a policy which the inspectors represent as a choice. This does not add up.
The reason most often given by Ministers against this policy is that it is worse at home. I beg the Government to give the kids a break and eight hours off. The Government are in loco parentis when children are at school. This would be a marvellous thing for the Government to do for parents.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, when I spoke on this Bill at Second Reading—which seems a million months ago, but perhaps it is not quite that long—I said that I was not convinced about having a ban on phones in schools. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said that I should listen to the arguments.
Whether we agree with online content and what children should access from smartphones is, in a way, a separate debate. There are two main arguments tonight which mean that I will support Amendment 215. First, as we have heard, this should be about supporting good educational outcomes. There is no doubt that having phones in schools is a distraction. We should give our young people the best possible opportunity to concentrate and focus for those eight hours in school.
Secondly, Ministers have said that there is guidance which strongly encourages schools to have policies that mobile phones should be put away. When I speak to teachers and heads, they say that, without something a bit tougher, it is very difficult to police, particularly when parents or families come in and say that there is an exception or why it should not apply. Sometimes they are even very aggressive towards teachers and heads who say that the pupils should not have phones. We should take the opportunity to support education outcomes and those who have to police this policy on the front line by supporting this amendment.
Baroness Cass (CB)
My Lords, I want to speak to this amendment for two reasons. One is that my name is on it. The second is for nostalgic purposes, because the first time I spoke in this House was in a debate that my noble friend Lady Kidron was leading on smartphones in schools. I stood up and spoke in her shadow—nothing changes, more than a year later. My niece was sitting nearby, observing democracy in action. Afterwards she said, “Well, what happens then? Do you just talk about it and then forget it?” I can tell her that we did not forget it and that it is still a work in progress.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I want to share the experience of schoolteachers, particularly head teachers. I and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, were on a call earlier this week with three head teachers from different parts of the country and from very different economic backgrounds. Their plea was: “You need to help us, because at the moment we have different policies on phones”. One, interestingly, was banning year 7s from having phones but not others. Another was to say: “Put it away. As long as we do not see it, it’s not a problem”. Others have pouches. A lot of their time is being taken up by a small group of vocal and often aggressive parents who demand that their children have their phones at school. Those head teachers are being distracted from their core duties to deal with this, and they were pleading with us, particularly with this vote tonight, to send a clear message to the Government that head teachers want to teach children rather than police smartphones.
The other thing I want to share is about the harms. We have talked a lot about social media, but often phones in schools lead to further bullying. We all saw a few years back the craze of happy slapping, where young people in playgrounds came behind others and slapped them, and the footage would be used and shared.
There is one other thing I want to share that is very personal. When one of my sons first started at a school in Rotherham, he was very keen to fit in—because we are from Sheffield—and he wanted to make friends. Unfortunately, a small group of so-called friends followed him into a toilet a few moments after he had gone in and, while he was sat on the toilet, they kicked the door in and took footage of him on the toilet. He did not tell me or the family. I got a phone call from a local community centre a week or two later to say, “Shaf, we are horrified by what we’ve seen. We’ve seen footage of your son. He didn’t know what to do, he couldn’t get up, and these kids were laughing. We saw it, and we think you should be made aware”. To their credit, the parents of the two young men who were involved came straight to our house when they found out; they were mortified. The school itself tried its level best, but, I have to say, we had to leave that school, and my son had to go to the other side of Sheffield to give him a fresh start.
There are real consequences. That is why, tonight, I will be backing the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the amendment of my good friend and colleague, my noble friend Lord Addington, on the requirements for people with special educational needs.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I want to make just one point, following up on the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley. The medical devices exception in the amendment is already provided for. If a more general exception were made for special educational needs—that is already close to 30% of children—the pressure on parents and pupils would be to game this, and the proportion of children with a special needs label would rise to truly stratospheric levels, at which point the phone ban would clearly have no meaning whatever. I urge noble Lords to think about the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, on other ways to provide the assistive functionality that might be needed.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, very briefly, it will come as no surprise that, when I was going to school, I did not have a smartphone, just like many of you here this evening, probably; we did not have that opportunity.
I fully support the principle of Amendment 215. I find a difficulty, though—this is a follow-up to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan—on the policing of this issue in schools. Doing your homework is a requirement at school; not every kid does it. Bullying and fighting in the playground are not allowed, but it still happens. I fully appreciate that the son of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, is not allowed a smartphone, but not every young person is accommodating like that: not every young person has the respect for their parents, let alone for their teachers.
It is okay making these laws, but, unless we have some type of policing and enforcement, it will not be of any benefit, because you are going to punish the people who willingly give up their phone when going into school. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, says, “It is okay, they will simply be asked to leave their phone at the door”, but they will not all leave their phone at the door. Some will have a phone hidden. How do we police and manage it? That is my serious question, because I absolutely know that not every young person will willingly do it. What do you do? Are you going to criminalise teachers for not taking the phones? Are you going to criminalise parents for allowing children to go to school with their phones? It is not that simple.
I fully support the principle of the amendment. Let me be clear: I wish phones had never been allowed in school. But the management, policing and enforcement of this is something totally different and it is not dealt with in this amendment or anywhere that I can see in this legislation. I am willing to support this amendment, by the way, but it needs a lot more doing to it before it is finished.
Does the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, think that, if those kids had been asked to leave their phones at the door, it would have stopped them breaking into the toilet cubicle with a phone hidden in their sock or down their shirt? This is an incomplete amendment that I am willing to support, but unless something better and deeper is come up with that allows it to be enforced and policed without criminalising teachers and parents, I am afraid it is not going to be of much use.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, for precisely the reasons outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, I have great suspicions about this amendment. It underestimates the operational difficulties of what is proposed, not least because the catchment age of this Chamber does not really allow us fully to experience or understand them. Therefore, I agree with the Government’s contention not to go straight to a statutory measure. However, it would help us if the Government made it plain, in the light of the experience in Australia—which we will be able to estimate in the next few months—Spain and so on, and of the experience of non-statutory guidance, whether they are open to considering statutory legislation somewhere down the line. It would be helpful if we understood that we have an open mind on this.
Lord Nash (Con)
I rise to support this amendment. The Government have, as I understand it, proposed non-statutory guidance that all schools should prohibit smartphone use by pupils in schools. This is indeed a move from their previous position, that most schools are already doing this and thus a firm rule is unnecessary. However, those of us who actually work in schools know that some schools do have a strict, clear smartphone policy which is actually effective. For instance, in my patch, students either cannot bring them with them, or they are taken off them when they arrive and locked away, or they have to go into a locked pouch. We are experimenting with all three to see which is the most effective, but I can say that they have all been highly effective in improving the behaviour and focus of students.
On the point about enforcement, if a smartphone is seen, it is confiscated for a long time. This is a firm and clear policy, and it is working. However, many schools, possibly most, have much a looser policy, rather along the lines of the Government’s now proposed non-statutory guidance: a weak and ineffective policy allowing children to use them in the loos and in the corridors, out of sight. I do wish sometimes that the Government would just admit they got it wrong.
When I was taking legislation through your Lordships’ House—five Acts as a Schools Minister—I took many amendments from Opposition Benches because they were sensible and I agreed with them. Clearly, the Government have moved on this; they accept they were wrong, but they will not admit it. They should go the whole way, and rather than producing some wishy-washy non-statutory “should” guidance, they should accept a clear rule or duty, as in Amendment 215. Teachers want it: they want a clear, firm rule consistently applied across all schools, as do parents, particularly those with children in different schools, who can find different policies very confusing.
I support this amendment because it is clear, strong and effective.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, will you allow me to introduce another voice—a voice that is not of this House? On 18 January 2016, Ian Russell, the father of Molly Russell, who took her own life aged 14, said on BBC television that a total ban of smartphones would be wrong. Why? Because he saw that the greatest danger is not mobile phones or smartphones, but social media. You can ban phones from school, but then the children go home and log on to social media.
Social media causes far greater damage because of the algorithms used. Ian Russell was clearly of the view that what is needed is careful thought and for those who know the dangers of both, and the complications involved, to make recommendations to the Government on how to tackle the use of smartphones in schools and the use of social media because of the damage it is causing all our children. I do not think banning mobile phones on its own will deal with the real danger of social media algorithms.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the House is probably keener to hear from the Minister than from me. I am grateful to noble Lords for their remarks. It was clarified that there are exceptions in the amendment around medical devices. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, of course, we want children with special educational needs to be independent and would be very happy to work with the noble Lord to look at that. But I agree completely with my noble friend Lady Spielman that we risk having one in three children in a classroom then being allowed to have a phone, which I know is not what the noble Lord wants either. With that, along with the rest of the House, I would like to hear from the Minister.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, the Government recognise concerns about the impact of mobile phones in schools, including the distraction from learning and the wider effects on children’s well-being. For this reason, we have always been clear that mobile phones have no place in schools.
It was clear from the examples given by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and the noble Lord, Lord Nash, that schools can deliver this. Research from the Children’s Commissioner shows that the overwhelming majority of schools already have policies in place that limit or restrict the use of mobile phones during the school day. However, it is also clear that the old mobile phones in schools guidance inherited from the previous Government did not deliver the clarity or consistency that schools need to implement mobile phone-free schools.
Amendment 215 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, requires schools in England to prohibit the use and possession of smartphones during the school day. As I say, the vast majority of schools already have policies in place that restrict access to mobile phones. The problem, therefore, is one of clarifying the guidance and enforcing those policies. That is why we have acted to address both. On Monday 19 January we published strengthened guidance which is clear that all schools should be mobile phone-free environments by default for the entire school day and pupils should not have access to their devices. That includes lessons, time between lessons, break times, lunchtime and in the loos. Not only does the strengthened guidance remove any ambiguity as to what effective prohibition of mobile phones looks like, but it includes practical, real-world case studies, demonstrating how schools are successfully implementing and sustaining these policies.
We know that schools need help. Where they do, they can get one-to-one support from the DfE’s attendance and behaviour hub lead schools, spread across all regions of the country, that are already effectively implementing mobile phone bans and have exemplary track records of supporting other schools to improve their practice. We have gone further: to reinforce the importance of effective implementation, Ofsted will, for the first time, check school mobile phone policy on every inspection, with schools expected to be mobile phone-free by default. It will check how effectively these policies are implemented when judging behaviour during inspections.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, questioned whether that would be effective, given the, in some cases, four-year gap between inspections. To be clear, Ofsted is one of the most powerful signals that the department gives to the sector on its priorities for teachers and leaders. While not all schools are inspected every year, the prioritisation of mobile phone policy in every inspection will improve policies across the system. From my time teaching, it is my experience—and I am sure it is the same for others across the House, including the former chief inspector—that Ofsted does not have to be on the premises to have an impact on what schools are doing.
We have already communicated these changes to the sector, but I make it clear that schools have our full support in taking this forward. This is a national reset on mobile phone use in schools, and we expect all school leaders, pupils and parents to follow this guidance. But this is not the end of the conversation, and we will continue to listen to the voices of parents, teachers and children on this issue.
I remind the House that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has announced that the Government will launch a short, sharp consultation on how to improve children’s relationship with social media and mobile phones. This will be a three-month consultation, with the Government reporting back in the summer. On the point made by my noble friend Lord Reid, as part of this the consultation will seek views on whether the mobile phones in schools guidance should be placed on a statutory footing, working through the evidence and bringing any proposals forward once these views have been taken into account.
Amendment 215 addresses the issue in a way that the Government cannot support. It is unclear what “possession” is meant to cover. If we define possession too tightly, we create problems for schools. On the radio this morning, the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, was praising the use of, for example, sealed pouches as a way to prevent the use of phones but also promoting this amendment. Of course, many schools already use sensible, effective approaches such as sealed pouches, stopping pupils accessing their mobile phones throughout the school day, which is the intention of this policy, but an overly strict definition of possession could make those approaches non-compliant, and we should not undermine what already works.
Amendment 216 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is an amendment to Amendment 215, and requires schools to provide exemptions for pupils who use mobile phones as assistive technology. Our strengthened guidance is clear: exceptions to the mobile phone policy may be required for children with specific special educational needs, disabilities or medical conditions. That includes users of healthtech or assistive technology. For example, pupils with diabetes might use continuous glucose monitoring with a sensor linked to their mobile phone to monitor blood sugar levels. Where mobile phone use allows pupils to manage their medical condition effectively, our guidance ensures that these cases are protected. Where school leaders need to make additional exceptions to or flexibilities in their policies based on a child’s individual needs, we trust them to do so.
For these reasons, and given the wider action the Government are taking to improve children’s relationship with technology, mobile phones and social media, I hope—although I do not have a lot of hope—that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Bull) (CB)
My Lords, I remind the House that the Question before the House is on Amendment 216 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, so we must first deal with that before we return to Amendment 215.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, as it appears that everybody wants to vote on this, I would like Amendment 215 to be in half-decent shape. I think it needs my amendment; therefore, I beg leave to press my amendment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the Minister says that phones have no place in schools and that the Government want a national reset. I say that we need our amendment. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Barran
“Permanent exclusion: assessmentAfter being informed that a pupil has been permanently excluded from a school or academy, the local authority must carry out an assessment under paragraph 3 (assessment of children’s needs) of Schedule 2 of the Children Act 1989.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require the local authority to undertake an assessment of the needs of the child if they are permanently excluded from school.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments returns to the issue of balancing the rights of children who are excluded from school with those of other children and staff in the classroom. All three of my amendments were tabled in Committee. Before I speak to them, I want to acknowledge the very positive evaluation of the impact of the behaviour hubs programme that was just published, and I thank all those involved.
In Committee, the Minister referred to the statutory Working Together guidance, which says that the local authority and partners should identify problems and unmet needs, including for children facing multiple suspensions or permanent exclusion from school. She referred again to the changes that the Government are making to local authority children’s services with a greater proposed emphasis on early help. Of course, this is how all of us would hope that the system would work but, by definition, when a child is permanently excluded, that early intervention has not achieved its goals.
To take my amendments in reverse order, Amendment 219 would make it clear that there is a presumption against reinstatement in a mainstream school after a child has been permanently excluded twice. As my noble friend Lady Spielman said in Committee, there is good evidence that these children do not go on to thrive in mainstream and are more likely to have their needs met through high-quality alternative provision. We all know that there is not enough of this currently, but that is for a different debate. Perhaps the forthcoming schools White Paper will address it. However, can the Minister confirm whether the Government plan to make it clear in future updates of the suspension and exclusions guidance that if a child has twice been excluded from a mainstream school, there is a presumption against placing them in another one?
My Amendment 218 reflects the anxieties that many parents and head teachers have about having a child in their classroom who has committed serious violence or sexual assault. We heard several examples of this in Committee, and the Minister talked about how the Government would,
“trust head teachers to use their professional judgment based on the individual circumstances of the case when considering whether to exclude a pupil, and we will protect their right to do that”.—[Official Report, 16/9/25; col. 2132.]
However, in Clauses 54 to 56 the Government are strengthening the ability of local authorities to require academies to accept a particular child via a managed move, so we need the clarity that my amendment brings. Again, can the noble Baroness confirm whether that will be in the forthcoming guidance?
In these debates, we rightly focus on the excluded child, but we too rarely speak with equal clarity about the children who remain, those whose learning could be disrupted, whose classrooms become unsafe and whose trust in adult authority is eroded when serious behaviour is not addressed decisively. Exclusion decisions are not made in a vacuum; they are made in the context of 30 other pupils and the staff responsible for them. Any system that weakens the ability of head teachers to act risks failing not one child but many. This is about not giving up on children but recognising when repeated failure in mainstream indicates that a different setting is more likely to meet a child’s needs and keep other children safe.
Finally, Amendment 217 aims to ensure that children who are permanently excluded are guaranteed a proper assessment by the local authority. I understand that schools need to inform the local authority when they permanently exclude a child. Of course, in strong local authorities this results in an assessment, but it is not consistent. I know the Minister understands just how vulnerable a child who is permanently excluded can be, so I hope she will agree to make this assessment a requirement. I beg to move.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, one year ago today, on 3 February 2025, 15 year-old Harvey Willgoose was tragically stabbed in the heart at All Saints Catholic High School in Sheffield. It happened in the school courtyard in the lunch break, and the perpetrator was Mohammed Umar Khan. An independent review has been commissioned by the school’s trust on what it calls “missed opportunities” and “too many red flags” about Mohammed Khan’s previous behaviour. Khan’s record showed around 130 incidents of concern relating to violence, anger issues and even carrying weapons, yet somehow teachers did not feel able to handle that. Allegedly—the trust is looking into this—some teachers said that they raised the alarm but were ignored or it was pushed away from them.
It is important that we note that teachers should never be frightened to intervene for whatever reason by asserting adult authority. One problem we have to address is making sure that we do not in any way send a message that teachers cannot have the tools that they need to deal with challenging behaviour in schools. It is therefore important that suspension and permanent exclusions are part of the tools that reinforce and deter serious misconduct across schools, signal that certain behaviours have severe consequences and allow boundaries to exist and be reinforced. That is beneficial to all pupils as well as staff. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that sometimes we forget those children who are sitting there and are victims of the misbehaving or violent child. It is for that reason that I have added my name to Amendment 217, which would require local authorities to undertake an assessment of the needs of any permanently excluded child. I am sure that one reason many head teachers are nervous about permanent exclusion is that they do not want that to be the end of the educational road for the child and they do not want the child to disappear. It is very important that we do not allow that to happen.
Amendment 218, which probes the Government’s willingness to introduce a presumption against the reinstatement of a child excluded for very serious matters, such as possession of a knife or other weapon, sexual assault or assault against a teacher, would be key in backing up teachers’ ability to be authoritative and feel safe when teaching. Pupils need to be relocated to an environment more suitable to their challenging behaviour and then they should be followed up because we do not want an argument to be used that permanently excluded, difficult, challenging children will end up in the wilderness with no possible options. These amendments cover that really well, and Amendment 217 aims to prevent that bleak outcome.
On Amendment 219, under which if pupils are excluded on two occasions it would not automatically be assumed that schools would have to take them back, I think that is important and I will be interested to hear what the Minister thinks about it, because it could prevent heightened risk to other staff or students. But I also think we should not presume that it is okay simply to move the problem to another mainstream school. It just feels lazy, like moving the deckchairs. More pupils are then put at risk in another school, but the problem is never tackled. They might actually need to be relocated to a more suitable environment.
I should say that, at one point, I taught for several years in a further education setting pupils from the age of 14 upwards who had been excluded from schools in the local area. They were, to say the least, challenging. Many of them had been violent in their classrooms, but many of them had literally just gone from pillar to post, pillar to post, with no particular regard to the issues they had. When they were actually in a special class—I am not saying it was special because I was teaching it—at least it meant that we could focus on the difficulties they had.
My final thought, having sat through a lot of the discussions, is that we need to be aware that the deterioration—and there has been a deterioration—of young people in schools does not come out of a vacuum. We have just heard the discussions and the tensions around mobile phones. We do have to think that sometimes our policies can make matters worse. In that instance, I think that the question that was asked earlier about how we are actually going to police and enforce any ban on mobile phones in schools was worth asking, because the teachers are going to have to police it. That could lead to a lot more tensions.
Also, to refer to an earlier amendment, suspensions and permanent exclusions rose sharply when schools reopened after the Covid lockdown period, with suspensions up by 21% and permanent exclusions up by 16%. Following on from the earlier amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Young, in relation to lockdowns, I think we should understand that that period really did damage young people and led to a decline in behaviour. We have to take some responsibility for that.
In general, I think that the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, are a really useful way for us to reconsider how we tackle this issue.
Lord Storey (LD)
Children have a right to learn, and teachers have a right to teach. Permanent exclusion is far more than a disciplinary measure; it is a pivotal moment that can shape a child’s future. Consider the 2023-24 academic year, when almost 10,900 children were permanently excluded in England, with nearly four in 10 due to persistent disruptive behaviour. Without careful support, these exclusions can set children on a path of disengagement, low attainment and tragically increased involvement with the criminal justice system.
We know that exclusions disproportionately affect the most vulnerable. Children eligible for free school meals or with special education needs are far more likely to be excluded, highlighting the urgent need for support that is tailored rather than one size fits all. All too often, excluded children simply fall out of the system, their potential left unrealised.
This amendment would require local authorities to carry out a formal needs assessment, ensuring that support is timely, targeted and responsive. Professionals will be able to identify barriers to learning, social or emotional challenges and offer suggestions for appropriate interventions, whether that be reintegration into another school, alternative provision or targeted mental health and well-being support. Whichever route this intervention follows, it is essential, as evidence shows that without such structured intervention excluded children face long-term education disadvantage and reduced life chances.
This is not mere bureaucracy; it is a practical, evidence-informed measure, designed to safeguard children and give them a chance to succeed. It aligns with the Government’s commitment to exclusion and equality of opportunity, recognising that every child has value, talent and potential. It is our collective responsibility to provide a safety net for those most at risk. I urge noble Lords to support this amendment, not as a mere procedural formality but as a moral and educational imperative. Let us ensure that no child is left behind simply because they have faced challenges in their schooling.
Lord Hampton (CB)
I will speak very briefly to Amendment 217. I know from my own teaching experience—and anyone who has seen the film documentary “Idris Elba: Our Knife Crime Crisis” will know—exactly how important it is that permanently excluded children are folded into some support system before they are lost to crime or worse. This is a very simple amendment that could save young lives.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The amendments in group 8 relate to the school exclusion framework. We firmly believe that every pupil, no matter their background, deserves to learn in a safe, calm and orderly classroom. Supporting good behaviour in schools is essential to achieving this, and we will continue to back teachers and school leaders in maintaining high standards.
Amendment 217, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to require local authorities to assess the needs of children under the Children Act 1989 whenever a pupil is permanently excluded. Section 17 of the Act already places a duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need. Naming specific groups risks narrowing eligibility and limiting local flexibility.
The Working Together to Safeguard Children guidance makes clear local authorities and partners should identify emerging problems and unmet needs, including for children facing exclusion. Our reforms to family help and multi-agency child protection, supported by over £500 million this year, will embed education experience within multi-agency teams. We are introducing a duty on safeguarding partners to ensure education settings are represented at both strategic and operational levels.
Amendments 218 and 219, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seek to introduce a presumption against reinstating pupils who have been excluded twice and for extremely serious behaviour such as possession of a knife or offensive weapon, assaulting a teacher and sexual assault. To be absolutely clear, no child or teacher should ever feel unsafe at school. Safe, calm and orderly environments are central to the Bill and to our support for schools and teachers, and head teachers must retain the ability to use appropriate sanctions, including exclusions, to maintain safety and good behaviour.
Governing bodies play an essential role in reviewing exclusions and deciding on reinstatement on a case-by-case basis. A blanket presumption of reinstatement would remove their ability to judge whether an exclusion was lawful, reasonable and fair, and could risk limiting a child’s access to mainstream education and opportunities for successful reintegration. For this reason, we do not have plans to change the guidance in the way the noble Baroness asked about. School leaders should use early intervention and multi-agency assessments as soon as concerns arise, to identify needs early and avoid escalation.
The Government are delivering a strong package of behaviour support, including new attendance and behaviour hubs targeted at the schools most in need, and plan to consult on an internal suspension framework to help schools use these sanctions effectively, minimise lost learning and keep children engaged in their education. The Bill represents a major strengthening of safeguarding legislation, reinforcing the importance of safety, well-being and behaviour in schools. Importantly, it aligns with wider action to protect young people from harm, including banning dangerous weapons, tightening online knife sale controls and expanding programmes that prevent youth violence.
For all these reasons, we do not consider that removing governing boards’ discretion through a presumption against reinstatement is necessary or appropriate, and I hope the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the Minister for those remarks. They are slightly disappointing, and certainly the Government’s reforms are doing an awful lot of heavy lifting. I am not going to press my amendments, but it is with a heavy heart, particularly in relation to Amendment 217. This is not about narrowing the scope of Section 17 of the 1989 Act; it is about saying that these children are children in need, almost by definition, so let us make sure we look at it systematically. But I hope that the Government’s reforms will work the miracle that the Minister believes they will. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 217.
“Child rights impact assessment(1) A Minister of the Crown must prepare and publish a child rights impact assessment in relation to any legislative provision, policy decision, budgetary decision, or other decision of a strategic nature that has or will have a direct or indirect impact on children’s wellbeing, social care or education.(2) The purpose of a child rights impact assessment is to secure better or further effect of the rights set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).(3) A child rights impact assessment must include consideration of the views, wishes and feelings of children and young people affected by the decision, insofar as the Minister is able to ascertain those views.(4) A child rights impact assessment should be undertaken on all relevant legislation, policy and budget development which will have a direct or indirect impact on children’s wellbeing, social care or education at the earliest possible opportunity and prior to making final decisions.(5) As soon as is practicable after the end of each three-year period, the Secretary of State must publish (in such a manner as they deem appropriate) a report on the steps taken to ensure that child rights impact assessments undertaken fully consider all relevant articles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and are carried out consistently for any legislative provision, policy decision, budgetary decision, or other decision of a strategic nature that has or will have a direct or indirect impact on children’s wellbeing, social care or education.(6) A report published under subsection (5) must include—(a) an assessment of how CRIAs have contributed to securing better or further effect of the rights set out in the UNCRC in relation to children’s wellbeing, social care and education;(b) steps taken to promote understanding and awareness of CRIAs across government departments;(c) guidance and training provided to government departments to support the production child rights impact assessments.(7) The UNCRC includes the rights and obligations set out in—(a) the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Part 1;(b) Articles 1 to 6(1), 6(3) and 7 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict;(c) Articles 1 to 10 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography;(d) any other Optional Protocols to the UNCRC that the United Kingdom may in future ratify.(8) The UNCRC rights and obligations for the purposes of this Act are subject to any reservations, objections or interpretative declarations by the United Kingdom as may be in force at the time.(9) The UNCRC rights and obligations for the purposes of this Act should be interpreted in the light of General Comments prepared by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child under rule 77 of its procedure and Concluding Observations made by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in response to a United Kingdom report under Article 45 paragraph (d) of the Convention.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will introduce a statutory requirement for Ministers—and thereby government departments—to routinely prepare and make publicly available a children’s rights assessment of the impact and/or expected impact of any proposed legislation, policy, budgetary decision or other strategic decision as they relate to children’s wellbeing, social care or education, and to periodically report on the steps taken to ensure that such reports fully consider all relevant articles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and are carried out consistently across government.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my fellow signatories to Amendment 221, those who supported a similar amendment in Committee, and the Children’s Rights Alliance for England, UNICEF UK and the NSPCC for their assistance. I also thank Minister MacAlister for a helpful meeting to discuss it.
In a nutshell, the amendment would introduce a statutory requirement for Ministers to prepare and publish a child’s rights impact assessment—CRIA—on any proposed legislation, policy, budgetary or other strategic decision related to children’s well-being, social care or education, and to publish periodic reports on the steps taken to ensure that CRIAs are being carried out to a high standard.
I am grateful too to my noble friend Lady Blower, who moved this and a related children’s rights amendment in Committee, on my behalf. I am bringing back this one amendment, minus a reference to operational decisions—in response to my noble friend the Minister’s comments in Committee—as a practical and proportionate way to ensure a children’s rights perspective on the issues covered by the Bill.
Crucially, since Committee, the report of module 2 of the Covid inquiry has recommended that
“the UK Government should introduce legislation to place child rights impact assessments on a statutory footing in England”.
This was in response to the inquiry’s finding that children’s needs and rights were not properly considered or understood by the Government during the pandemic, and its conclusion, based on extensive evidence, that the use of CRIAs could have guided better outcomes for children during the pandemic.
In Committee, my noble friend the Minister accepted that CRIAs offered policymakers a “valuable tool”, but argued that they should be “effective and proportionate”, and that voluntary rather than statutory CRIAs would be more manageable and less challenging. But experience, including that of the pandemic, suggested that a voluntary approach is not working. Only a small number have been undertaken across government since the DfE’s introduction of a template in 2018, practice is highly inconsistent, there is no oversight of their quality and there is no guarantee that the few that are concluded are published, which is necessary in the interests of transparency and accountability.
Under the previous Government, it was all too obvious when scrutinising relevant legislation that a CRIA had not been undertaken. On the rare occasions when one was finally produced in response to parliamentary pressure, it was nothing more than a post hoc tick-box exercise: a far cry from being a “valuable tool” that would help ensure that children’s best interests were addressed from the very outset of policy-making.
When questioned about CRIAs, other Ministers and officials often point to the inclusion of age in equality impact assessments as being sufficient, but equality impact assessments are no substitute for CRIAs. They do not engage with the requirements of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which include taking account of the views of children themselves.
I therefore hope I can persuade my noble friend that a statutory duty to undertake CRIAs would not be the challenging and disproportionate burden on departments that my other noble friend fears. Here I will draw on the experience of Wales, which I learned about at an inspiring parliamentary round table chaired by my honourable friend Helen Hayes MP, chair of the Education Select Committee. The experience of Wales, and indeed of other countries that have mandatory CRIAs, is that they can be easily embedded into existing policy-making processes without a disproportionate impact. Typically, they include an initial screening stage to assess whether a full CRIA is required, so that in practice not every policy is subject to one. They are designed to be light-touch and proportionate. They inform every stage of policy-making and are published in the interests of transparency and accountability. The Welsh Government have developed a manual and comprehensive support system, and I am sure we could learn a lot from this, rather than reinventing the wheel.
The Welsh experience and wider research by UNICEF UK have confirmed that, where properly applied, CRIAs result in better outcomes for children, reflecting their rights as set out in the UN convention, to which we are a signatory. Identifying and addressing potential rights breaches early can help to prevent poor decision-making, saving time, public money and, most importantly, avoidable harm to children. They are thus both proactive and preventive. As it is, though, England is seen very much as an outlier. Do we really want English children to be the poor relation compared with children in Wales and Scotland, or the treatment of Welsh and Scottish children to continue to be dependent on whether or not it is a reserved matter?
The amendment is now supported by the Children’s Commissioner for England and by around 160 organisations spanning a wide range of children’s interests, around 40 more than in Committee. Rejection of it would in effect mean rejection of the Covid inquiry’s recommendation, the need for which has been reinforced by evidence of the children and young people’s module. Acceptance of it would be widely applauded by civil society. It would strengthen and underpin the Bill, ensure that children’s voices were heard in policy-making and provide a lasting legacy to help ensure that children’s rights were properly recognised by future Governments.
If nevertheless my noble friend rejects the amendment, I remind her of what my noble friend Lady Smith said in Committee when she acknowledged that CRIAs provide
“an important toolbox of ways in which policymakers can be, rightly, driven to consider the rights of children … We need to improve the way in which we use that toolbox across government”.
She finished with the very welcome assurance that
“we will continue our work to ensure that child rights impact assessments will be delivered across government and that children’s rights and interests will be at the heart of decisions made by this Government”.—[Official Report, 18/9/25; cols. 2430-32.]
Could my noble friend now tell us what steps exactly the Government are taking to achieve these aims, and could she give a commitment that they will evaluate the effectiveness of this voluntary approach with a clear timeline to inform their formal response to the Covid inquiry’s recommendation? This should be done in partnership with the key organisations that have worked hard on this amendment. It would show the way for the introduction at a future date of statutory CRIAs, as recommended by the Covid inquiry, so that children’s rights in England are protected and promoted as well as in Wales and Scotland.
I will conclude with the words of Ben, a 13 year-old boy who is following the Bill, who was quoted in Committee and who wrote to me again last week:
“I think the CRIA amendment would make a significant difference to children’s lives ... For me personally it would feel good to know that the government is taking my concerns and the concerns of other children into account when they come to pass the Bill”.
I beg to move.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 221, cogently moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to place child’s rights impact assessments on a statutory basis for the purposes referred to in her amendment.
In Committee, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, referred to the
“shared goal of putting children’s rights at the very centre of policy-making”.—[Official Report, 18/9/25; col. 2429.]
Last week, in answer to a question by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, described the UNCRC as
“an essential framework which will guide both Ministers and officials in drawing up the appropriate policies”.—[Official Report, 27/1/26; col. 764.]
There is therefore no doubt about the Government’s stated intentions and commitment, but those make it only more difficult to understand why there has been a reluctance to act on the recommendations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, as long ago as 2023, for stronger national frameworks with greater efforts to embed child rights into law by full incorporation. That would be the best way to maintain and raise standards, enhance accountability, and show that children’s rights are regarded as truly important and should have a strong influence on decision-making.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I too have added my name to this important amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and indeed with the late great Judge Munby, that a full incorporation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is the gold standard to which many of us campaigners have long aspired. Tonight, however, we are talking about just one little part of it—a very important part.
Devolution has often allowed the devolved nations and regions to do something different and more adventurous—to show the way. Wales and Scotland have done just that, particularly in relation to children. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said in her opening speech, both Wales and Scotland already have a mandatory system of child’s rights impact assessments. As a resident of Wales, I will say a little more about how it works there, though I also congratulate Scotland on its approach.
Over the years, in discussion with former Minister Edward Timpson and former Minister Zahawi, sometimes accompanied by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, if I remember correctly, I have promoted CRIAs for the sake not only of the children themselves but of effective and efficient government. In similar conversations today, I could have now called in aid the fact that, in Wales, research has shown that CRIAs, where properly applied, result in better attention to children’s rights under the UNCRC and better outcomes for children. Crucially, in the interests of efficient government, they help to prevent complex and expensive litigation later when things go wrong. These proactive and preventive measures can ensure that we get it right first time; surely, that is what we all aspire to do in making policy.
The recent debate on the regular report of the Children’s Commissioner for Wales showed how deeply the language of children’s rights has permeated parliamentary scrutiny and debate in the Senedd. Over 250 CRIAs have already been carried out, covering multiple areas. They have not been found to be disproportionate, as the Minister seemed to think in Committee when she said that voluntary arrangements would be less challenging and more manageable. As a matter of fact, I think they should be challenging. However, as with the Welsh laws on mandatory reporting of child abuse, the CRIA system has been implemented in a way that is both sensible and proportionate, with a screening procedure at the start, which indicates whether UNCRC rights are engaged by the policy under discussion.
Many years ago, I had a discussion with officials at the DfE about how the Government prepare for their five-yearly report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, according to their obligations under the convention. There appeared to be no system at all, resulting in a bit of a scramble every five years when the report date was looming. I pointed out that if CRIAs were done and recorded routinely, not only would they produce better policy but they could form the foundation for the regular report without a lot of fuss. By the way, it would certainly result in more favourable concluding observations in the Committee’s final report. I am afraid we really are an outlier in several respects.
However, although a template was produced in 2018, soon after Minister Zahawi took over from Minister Timpson, they have not been routinely used, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said. For the reasons that I have outlined, this is a missed opportunity. I hope the Government will have a rethink in line with Amendment 221.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, we admire the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for her relentless focus on this issue, which is obviously well intended. But as we made clear in Committee, we are not in a position to support this amendment. Our reservations stem from the belief that its remit would extend to every ministerial decision that may have, either directly or indirectly, an impact on the well-being of children. It may add an additional legal layer of bureaucracy to a legislative process that is, unfortunately, already weighed down and could therefore hinder the decision-making process. While it is no doubt intended to improve the well-being of children, it has the potential to be detrimental to swift and decisive action in the best interests of children, and for those reasons we are not able to support it.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 221, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lister, would place a duty on Ministers and officials to prepare and publish a child rights impact assessment, or CRIA, in relation to all relevant legislation, policy and budget development which will impact on children’s well-being, social care or education prior to the decision being taken.
I restate this Government’s continued commitment to upholding children’s rights and the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. We continue to work closely with key stakeholders that advocate for the rights of children. As stated in Committee, members of the department meet quarterly with representatives from children’s rights charities, providing Ministers and officials with opportunities to hear directly from experts in the sector, helping us to put children’s rights at the heart of policy-making.
We agree that impacts on children should be carefully assessed as part of policy-making; however, such an amendment is unnecessary, as upon ratifying the UNCRC in 1991, the UK Government made a commitment to give due regard to the UNCRC when making new policy and legislation. Compliance is demonstrated through the periodic reporting process every five years when the Government report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child on progress the UK has made in upholding children’s rights.
To pick up on the points about devolved Governments, powerfully made by different contributors—the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, clearly wanted to speak about Wales—as we say, these are devolved matters. Devolved Administrations are free to develop their approach to children’s rights and we are confident that the UK Government’s approach fulfils our duties under the UNCRC. This Government are committed to being child-centred and will continue to put children at the heart of our decision-making. We will continue to assess the impact of the devolved Governments’ changes, including the duty on their Ministers to complete child rights impact assessments for relevant work.
Safeguarding children’s rights is of utmost importance, but assessments should be effective and proportionate. Introducing a statutory requirement for Ministers and officials to prepare and publish CRIAs for all measures that affect children would be a significant undertaking. Government departments will continue to complete CRIAs where necessary, including on this legislation, which has been published and will be updated. The Covid inquiry noted that where mandatory arrangements are in place, for example in Scotland and Wales, CRIAs were not completed.
Furthermore, we have heard the strength of feeling on this matter in this House and in subsequent engagements, including between the Minister for Children and Families and my noble friend Lady Lister. My department will therefore be upskilling officials across government on the importance of children’s rights in policy-making. This includes delivering training to officials across government on the importance of children’s rights and supporting the completion of the CRIAs when developing policies or legislation that may impact on children and young people.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I thank those who spoke in support of the amendment. I am disappointed with my noble friend’s response, although I welcome what she said about upskilling officials. I hope that that will be done in conjunction with the stakeholders to whom she referred, with whom the Government have had regular meetings, because those very stakeholders are behind this amendment, and they clearly do not think that what happens at present is sufficient.
I am disappointed that it is not possible to accept the recommendation of the Covid inquiry now. I am glad, obviously, that it will have to be looked at and there will be a formal response, but here was an opportunity to do something about it. These Bills do not come along that often, so, even if the Government do accept the Covid inquiry’s recommendation for statutory CRIAs, when will that become law?
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child regularly recommends that we produce CRIAs, so, clearly, it does not think we are sufficiently meeting the requirements of the UN convention. It is simply not enough just to have signed up to the convention. But it is late, and I know people want to get home—I do—and, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Storey
“National tutoring guarantee(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish a report outlining the steps necessary to introduce a national tutoring guarantee.(2) A “national tutoring guarantee” means a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to ensure access to small group academic tutoring for all disadvantaged children who require academic support.(3) A report published under this section must include an assessment of how best to deliver targeted academic support from qualified tutors to children—(a) from low-income backgrounds,(b) with low prior attainment,(c) with additional needs, or(d) who are young carers.(4) In preparing a report under this section, the Secretary of State must consult with—(a) headteachers,(b) teachers,(c) school leaders,(d) parents of children from low-income backgrounds,(e) children from low-income backgrounds, and(f) other individuals or organisations as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(5) A report under this section must be laid before Parliament.(6) Within three months of a report under this section being laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must take steps to begin implementation of the recommendations contained in the report.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish a report outlining the steps required to introduce a national tutoring guarantee, and to begin implementing its recommendations.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 222 in my name. This would require the Secretary of State to publish a report outlining the steps needed to introduce a national tutoring guarantee and to begin implementing its recommendations. I brought this recommendation forward because the Covid-19 pandemic exposed and worsened education inequalities. Many pupils, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, were left behind. Without targeted support, these gap risks become long term, limiting life chances and future opportunities.
High-quality tutoring has been shown to be one of the most effective ways to help pupils catch up. That is why the national tutoring programme has played such an important role since 2020. In the 2023-24 academic year alone, the programme delivered 1.5 million courses and reached approximately 1.7 million pupils across England. Around 45% of these pupils were eligible for free school meals and 28% had special educational needs. These figures show that the programme has successfully targeted some of the pupils who need it most. However, they also highlight that, despite this reach, the support remains temporary and unevenly guaranteed.
That is why a national tutoring guarantee is so important. My amendment would require the Secretary State to set out a clear plan for it and begin implementing it without delay. It would ensure that access to high-quality tutoring is equitable, consistent and based on evidence rather than dependent on local decisions or temporary funding. A national tutoring guarantee would mean that no child’s opportunity to catch up is determined by postcode or parental resources. It would demonstrate that the Government take seriously their responsibility to support pupils at risk of falling behind.
We know that gaps in learning can have lasting consequences that affect exam results, life chances and employment prospects, making this not merely an educational measure but a vital investment for our young people. For these reasons, I commend this amendment to the House and urge sending a clear message that every child deserves the opportunity to succeed, regardless of the circumstances that they face.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 243E, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Layard. It is late, and I promise to be brief.
In Committee, a cross-party group of Peers spoke in support of an amendment that would have guaranteed a place on an apprenticeship to every 16 to 18 year-old who wanted it. Such a guarantee would have improved the supply of skills in this country at a time when they are needed more than ever, not least because of the Government’s success in curbing immigration. It would have enhanced growth and, more important still, improved the lives of young people who struggle with the academic education system.
Sadly, the Government were unable to support the amendment at that time. However, I was grateful to the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, for the positive spirit in which she responded. Since that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Layard, and I have had constructive meetings with DWP officials. We have therefore sought to soften the amendment to bring it into line with what Ministers and officials have said to us.
We are mindful that resources are finite, and the noble Lord, Lord Layard, and I have redrafted the original amendment to take this into account. All we are asking now is for the Government to endorse the principle that they will prioritise the provision of sufficient apprenticeships for qualified 16 to 18 year-olds as soon as resources permit. In effect, we are asking for the Government to sign up to the principle of a guarantee, not to its immediate delivery.
Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Layard, is unable to be here today due to a long-standing engagement, but he has asked me to make three very short points. First, by the age of 18, one in three of our young people have ceased to receive any education or training. This proportion is much higher than in any comparable competitor country and is terrible for our productivity and the prospects of these young people.
Secondly, it is not these young people’s fault. Most of them would like to learn while earning, but the opportunities are just not there. Three times more people apply for apprenticeships than the number who obtain them. This is totally different from the university route, where nearly all applicants find a place.
Thirdly, the top priority in education policy should therefore be to ensure that there are enough apprenticeship places up to level 3 for all qualified applicants. That is what this amendment proposes. This is a hugely important issue that relates to one of the greatest problems facing our country. I hope that the Minister agrees that this should be put into law, but, if she cannot, can she at least make an oral commitment to this principle?
Lord Mott (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 241 in my name. It would require the Secretary of State to commission and publish a report on the educational attainment of school-aged children with a parent in prison. This is a focused and proportionate amendment. It does not prescribe policy. It does not require new programmes or spending. But it does seek to ensure that we understand properly the scale and nature of the problem before us.
During the progress of this Bill, there has been extensive discussion about vulnerable children, about those facing disadvantages and about the barriers that prevent too many pupils in our schools from fulfilling their academic potential. Children with a parent in prison are one such group. They are often invisible in our data, our systems and our schools.
I should make the House aware of my interest as a trustee of the national charity, Children Heard and Seen, which supports children and families impacted by parental imprisonment in their own community.
It is estimated that hundreds of thousands of children in England experience parental imprisonment at some point during their childhood. Evidence suggests that these children are more likely to experience disrupted schooling, lower educational attainment, poorer attendance and higher levels of emotional and behavioural difficulties. Despite this, there is no comprehensive national assessment of how parental imprisonment affects educational outcomes, nor a clear understanding of what interventions within the school system work best in mitigating these harms. Without this data, schools may struggle to identify affected pupils, local authorities may fail to plan appropriate support and national policy risks overlooking a group of children who face significant but often hidden disadvantages.
This amendment simply seeks to address that gap. It would require the Secretary of State, within six months of Royal Assent, to commission a report on the educational attainment of school-age children with a parent in prison and to make recommendations as to how their attainment could be improved. Importantly, it would also require this report to be published and laid before Parliament, ensuring transparency and enabling informed scrutiny and debate. This is not about labelling children, nor about lowering expectations. On the contrary, it is about honestly recognising barriers so that they can be effectively addressed. Schools cannot support what they cannot see, and policymakers cannot act confidently without a robust evidence base.
Education is one of the most powerful interventions we have to improve life chances, break cycles of crime and help children facing adversity to fulfil their potential. For children affected by parental imprisonment, school can provide stability, routine and a sense of normality at a time of upheaval. This can happen only if schools are aware of the specific challenges these pupils face and are equipped with the knowledge and tools to respond appropriately. By increasing awareness and understanding within the education system, this amendment would help to ensure that pupils affected by parental imprisonment are not inadvertently overlooked and are given the best possible opportunity to succeed academically.
This amendment is modest in scope, measured in ambition and entirely consistent with the aims of this Bill. I ask only that we shine a light on an issue that too often remains overlook and that we base future policy on evidence rather than on assumption. If we are serious about improving children’s well-being and about breaking cycles of disadvantage, then we must be able to understand the experiences of all vulnerable children, including those with a parent in prison. I hope that the Minister will share the ambition in Amendment 241 and recognise that it is a constructive step towards better outcomes for a group of children who deserve greater attention and support.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, my Amendment 243 deals with climate mitigation and adaptation. It would make statutory existing government guidance that new school buildings must be both net zero in operation and adapted to 2 degrees of warming, and would require the Government to produce a safe and resilient schools plan, laying out how existing school buildings would meet these targets.
One issue is that the Government do not seem to know the scale of the problem—for instance, the department does not hold information about the amount of lost learning time due to flooding. We have done a bit of research on the impact of extreme weather recently. Storm Chandra in late January caused 80 schools to close or partially close in Devon, Dorset and Somerset. Over 400 schools closed in Northern Ireland on 27 January due to weather, and Storm Goretti caused at least 278 schools in northern Scotland to close. That adds up to hundreds of lost school days across the UK. Of course we expect some of this—we cannot get around the snow—but my point is that weather events are increasing, and we could risk losing a lot of learning days, not to mention the soggy books and school equipment that are left behind.
The UK has no statutory reporting system, and what data exists is only at the local authority level; it is primarily for parents, not for anything strategic. Can the Minister commit that the department will start to track this centrally so that we have some kind of usable data?
The wider issue is that we lack a plan for how to deal with what is coming down the road. Everyone knows that climate change is getting worse, and we need a climate adaptation plan for schools. It needs to come from central government, otherwise we risk creating a multitiered system, where some schools do better and some do not. Probably, almost inevitably, it will be the poorest schools that end up being closed when there is a bad flooding event.
We have a template to follow; a few years ago, the Mayor of London commissioned a report which tailored plans for 60 schools. Many of the solutions were very simple, such as flood doors, shading and ventilation windows, which could be deployed widely and cheaply. The London report found that 93% of schools in the capital reported overheating as an issue, 78% said that it had a significant impact on learning and 43% experienced it multiple times or continuously through the summer term. Yes, London is relatively dry or hot and there will be different issues, largely flooding, in areas like the West Country. But the climate science shows that we are getting hotter summers and wetter winters, and that will only increase.
I know that there will be costs but, as with all things connected to our changing weather system, it is much cheaper to act now than later. As a starting point, will the Minister consider asking schools about this as part of annual surveys, and commit that the department will assess any plans that schools have made and issue general overall guidance on what to do? On the basis of these bits of information, I suspect that it will become abundantly clear that what we need is a Department for Education led safe and resilient schools plan.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to my Amendment 243A, I declare my interests as the director of the Free Speech Union and a member of the Knowledge Schools Trust.
The amendment would stop safeguarding policies and procedures in schools being misused for political purposes, a prime example being the recent cancellation of a talk by the Labour MP Damien Egan at a secondary school in his Bristol constituency, on the grounds that allowing a vice-chair of the Labour Friends of Israel to speak posed a safeguarding risk to children. The Bristol branch of the National Education Union said on its Facebook page, after Mr Egan was no-platformed:
“We celebrate this cancellation as a win for safeguarding”.
In another Facebook post, the Bristol branch of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign also described Mr Egan’s ban as a win for safeguarding.
At the Free Speech Union, we have come across numerous examples of school safeguarding policies being weaponised by political activists to silence their opponents, whether visiting speakers or members of staff. For instance, the Free Speech Union recently took on the case of a teacher in Henley who was referred to the local authority designated officer—LADO, the official in charge of investigating safeguarding concerns—because he showed his A-level politics class some Trump campaign videos from the 2024 presidential election. The teacher was accused of causing his A-level students, aged 17 and 18, “emotional harm”. In one document, local officials in charge of child protection suggested that the showing of the Trump campaign videos could amount to a “hate crime”. Incidentally, he also showed the students in his A-level politics class some of Kamala Harris’s campaign videos, but those did not raise any safeguarding concerns.
In another Free Speech Union case, a teacher at a primary school in Tower Hamlets was sacked and referred to his local child protection board after telling off some Muslim boys for washing their feet in the sinks in the boys’ lavatories. I could go on.
Safeguarding policies and procedures were put in place to protect children from abusive parents and sexual predators, yet the weaponisation of these policies by political activists risks local authority designated officers and local safeguarding boards not taking genuine concerns seriously. That in turn endangers children’s safety. It is hard to think of a more cynical form of political activism—but, of course it has the desired effect. What MP who is sympathetic to Israel in its war with Hamas will risk arranging a visit to a school in his or her constituency knowing, ahead of time, that they could end up being no-platformed and branded a safeguarding risk to children?
Amendment 243A would put a stop to this mischief. It says:
“When making safeguarding assessments or investigating safeguarding complaints in relation to teachers, visitors or volunteers in schools and other educational settings, no account may be taken of the political views expressed or presented by the subject of that safeguarding assessment or complaint, provided those views are not … unworthy of respect in a democratic society … in conflict with the fundamental rights of others, or … affiliated with any political party, group or organisation which is proscribed for the purposes of the Terrorism Act 2000”.
We urgently need to stop this cynical weaponisation of policies and procedures that were put in place to protect children from predators and abusers, not unfashionable political opinions.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to signal my support for Amendment 243E, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Layard. I added my name in Committee, and I am very sorry that, sadly, I missed the deadline for adding it on Report. The noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, set out very clearly the purpose of this amendment and I do not want to repeat that. I just think it is very telling indeed that three times as many people apply for apprenticeships than the numbers who obtain them, and that is just because the places are not available. Just think how different that is from the university route, where nearly all applicants find a place. For me, it is fundamentally an issue of equity and parity of treatment for all young people.
We have seen the number of under-19s starting apprenticeships fall by more than a third since the apprenticeship levy was introduced. This amendment, as has been said, has been very carefully recrafted by the noble Lords, Lord Layard and Lord Macpherson, into something which I hope very much goes with the grain of what the Government are trying to achieve. I therefore very much hope that we will hear something positive from the Minister on it.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my other amendment in this group, Amendment 243B, but I will just add a few words on Amendment 243E, following on from my noble friend Lady Tyler’s comments. We are in danger of abandoning an entire generation of young people who do not follow the traditional university route. While apprenticeship places at levels 5 and 6 continue to expand, opportunities at levels 3 and 4 are shrinking. This surely is a cruel paradox. Young people who have university degrees will be able to access higher-level apprenticeships. Meanwhile, those who most need levels 3 and 4 to begin their careers—16 to 18 year-olds without prior qualifications—are left stranded. These young people are not lacking in ambition or ability. They simply seek a different path—one that is rooted in practical skills and real-world experience. Yet we are closing the doors in their faces at the very moment that they are ready to step through them.
We saw at first hand the transformative power of apprenticeships for young people who thrive outside traditional academic settings. This amendment would ensure that, as we develop apprenticeship policy, we do not forget the young people who need these opportunities the most. It is about fairness, opening pathways, and giving every young person, regardless of whether they go to a university, a genuine chance to build a meaningful future. I urge the House to support it.
On my Amendment 243B, we know that schools are not VAT-rated, and that sixth forms in schools are not VAT-rated. Then along came the academisation of our schools, and a very clever move was made by the noble Lord, Lord Gove—I hope I am not using his name in vain; he is not here—who saw a very quick way to enable sixth forms to become part of multi-academy trusts. So, guess what? The sixth forms that chose to go into a multi-academy trust were not VAT-rated. Those poor sixth forms who decided to stay on their own and not be swallowed up by a multi-academy trust are VAT-ed: they have to pay VAT. How unfair is that?
The average stand-alone sixth-form college turnover is around £15 million, and it spends 80% or more on staff, examination fees, food and depreciation, which does not attract VAT. So a 20% refund on what remains would save them about £500,000. But, of course, would it be unthinkable that the DfE would bring sixth-form colleges into Section 33: in other words, they would not be VAT-rated but would not be FE colleges? Imagine what that extra money would do to attract students and further the skills agenda that is so important to the Government. Perhaps the Minister will tell us clearly why these stand-alone sixth-form colleges cannot be treated in a fair and equitable way, like sixth forms in schools or sixth forms in multi-academy trusts.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging group and we thank all noble Lords who have made valuable contributions.
Amendment 222 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, is indeed well intentioned and highlights important issues, but we hold reservations that a national tutoring guarantee may risk diverting resources and overstretching teachers. It would be our preference for schools themselves to decide whether a tutoring programme works and then to identify the most suitable approach for their pupils. We thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for his approach, but we are not able to support him on this particular amendment.
On the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mott, it is clear that more needs to be done to support children with a parent in prison. If we understood it correctly, the Minister previously suggested that the Government were undertaking an analysis between the Department for Education and the Ministry of Justice to address this issue. We would be most grateful if the Minister could update your Lordships’ House on what that work is which is being undertaken, and when actions will be evidenced to answer the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Mott.
Regarding Amendment 243 in the name of my noble kinswoman, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, schools should absolutely be safe and resilient, and we seek assurance from the Minister that the Government have this covered.
We welcome Amendment 243A the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Acton. It is clear that we should not allow safeguarding procedures to be misused for individual political preferences and means. It is entirely correct that this is given the full weight of the law if it is not consistently applied by both teachers and heads. We thank my noble friend Lord Young for his commitment to this issue and urge the Government to stand united on it.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I think I win the prize tonight for the most wide-ranging set of amendments that could possibly come together in one group.
I turn first to Amendment 222, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I appreciate the noble Lord’s arguments, which were also put forward in Committee. I thank him for raising them again. However, my view on this remains the same: schools are best placed to understand the needs of their pupils and should be able to choose from a range of options to best suit those needs, with tutoring being one option. Although the national tutoring programme has ended, schools can continue to provide tutoring through the use of funds such as pupil premium, which can be used to support the disadvantaged pupils identified in this proposed amendment. Guidance based on evidence gathered through the programme is available to support schools to deliver tutoring.
In addition, the noble Lord may be aware that on 26 January the Department for Education announced plans to co-create AI tutoring tools with teachers and leading tech companies. This programme will develop and robustly test our AI tutoring tools so they are safe and work for pupils, including the most disadvantaged, and school staff to complement high-quality, face-to-face teaching. We need to have confidence that schools are best able to go forward and use their resources appropriately.
On Amendment 241, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mott, I fully appreciate the noble Lord’s concerns about the educational attainment of children with a parent in prison. We had a good discussion in Committee and we have committed to identifying and supporting all children affected by parental imprisonment. We welcome the intent of this amendment and assure the noble Lord that the Department for Education is working closely with the Ministry of Justice to determine how we can best identify all children affected, not just those of school age, sensitively and ensure that they get support to enable them to thrive.
I think that emphasis on sensitivity is crucial here. I stress what I have said before, which is that we must not make any assumptions in this area about the experience of individual young people and must make sure that their needs are met across the board. It is a complex picture and our approach is to make sure that we link to a consistent nationwide support offer. We are working through the details of exactly how we can do this. Sharing information and increasing awareness have to be fundamental measures that we look at in this. While I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, I hope he recognises the seriousness with which we take this subject.
Amendment 243, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, would require new schools to be built to deliver net zero carbon in operation and to be resilient to climate change, and for action plans to be developed for all existing schools to reach net zero and to be resilient to the impacts of climate change. I can confirm that the Department for Education already requires all centrally funded school building projects to be net zero carbon in operation, designed to be climate resilient to a two-degree centigrade rise in average global temperatures and future proofed for a 4% rise, and to incorporate sustainable drainage systems and promote biodiversity. The DfE’s sustainability strategy introduced an expectation for all schools to develop a climate adaptation plan. This is supported by the Climate Ambassadors Network, which provides free expertise to schools.
The considerations set out in the amendment should be included in the setting’s climate action plan. As I say, guidance has been published, and I hope that schools are aware of the programme of support that is available to help them put the plans in place, with the sustainability leadership and climate action plans in education from the department. The requirement for a climate action plan has also been included in the recently updated estate management standards. This policy is designed to ensure that action is taken at a responsible body and/or setting level to ensure that children and young people are prepared for a changing future and that sustainability and climate resilience is built into the operation of the setting.
Turning to Amendment 243A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, I appreciate the intention behind this amendment: to prevent safeguarding procedures being misused for political purposes. The Government cannot support it, however. Safeguarding teams must be able to consider all relevant information to keep children safe, and restricting their ability to take account of political views would make that vital work harder. We recognise the difficulties that schools face when making decisions that require consideration of safeguarding and security risks alongside political impartiality and freedom of speech. However, we can all agree that the fact that my honourable friend Damien Egan MP was unable to visit a school in his constituency was a completely unacceptable situation, and I think it triggered, in part, the amendment. All Members of Parliament should be able to visit anywhere in their constituency without any fear of antisemitism or prejudice.
Ofsted has inspected the school in question and found no concerns, but it is also vital that we fully understand the circumstances of this case. That is why the Secretary of State has asked the trust to commission an independent investigation into what happened so that key lessons can be learned. The Secretary of State has also announced an independent national review to help ensure that all schools and colleges have the right systems, processes and support available to identify and respond effectively to antisemitism and related issues, as has been outlined. It is important that we do not pre-empt those reviews, and the DfE will of course continue to look at all schools and colleges across the board through the lens of the work they are doing.
On Amendment 243B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, I am aware that the VAT status of all further education colleges is an area of continued interest for the sector. Colleges are unable to reclaim VAT incurred on their non-business activity, which includes providing free education. The Government operate VAT refund schemes for local authorities, including the schools they maintain, and for academies. These are variously designed to prevent local authorities needing to raise local taxes to pay for their VAT costs, and to support schools to leave local authority control by ensuring equal VAT treatment between schools and academies. Colleges do not meet the criteria for either scheme. In relation to business activity, colleges enjoy an exemption from VAT which means that they do not have to charge VAT to students but cannot recover it either. I stress that tax is a matter for the Chancellor, who takes decisions at fiscal events in the context of the broader public finances.
Amendment 243E stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Layard, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, for laying out its content and for the work he does with my noble friend, who is regarded as a real champion in this area. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for their comments. The amendment seeks to ensure that every eligible young person aged 16 to 18 in England who wishes to start an apprenticeship at level 3 or below has the opportunity to do so.
This amendment is in the context of an incredible drop-off in the number of people starting apprenticeships, and the unforgivable rise in the number of young people who are NEET across the whole of the country. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Layard is such a champion of apprenticeships, and this Government share his ambition to support more of these opportunities for young people. For this reason, we are investing in young peoples’ futures and rebalancing apprenticeships back towards young people, who obviously have the most to gain from apprenticeships, regaining their confidence, against the backdrop of the fall in starts over the last decade.
Since we last spoke in Committee, we have announced our ambition to support 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships, backed by an additional £725 million of investment. We will expand foundation apprenticeships into sectors where young people are traditionally recruited, exploring occupations such as hospitality and retail. We are making £140 million available to pilot new approaches to better connect young people, especially those who are NEET, to local apprenticeship opportunities. From August, apprenticeship training will be completely free for SMEs who hire eligible young people aged 16 to 24.
We also continue to provide a range of financial support to encourage employers to offer apprenticeships to young people. We provide £1,000 to employers when they take on apprentices aged under 19, or eligible 19 to 24 year-olds. Employers receive additional payments of up to £2,000 for eligible foundation apprenticeships. Employers are not required to pay anything towards employees’ national insurance for all apprentices up to age 25.
However, we have to recognise that apprenticeships are jobs, first and foremost. We cannot compel an employer to hire—it must remain for employers to decide when they offer apprenticeships to meet their skills needs.
With those comments, I hope the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tarassenko
“Register of software tools permitted in schools(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare a register of software tools, including websites, which may be used by pupils for educational purposes in schools.(2) For their software to be listed on the register, a provider must—(a) ensure their software adheres to standards set out in—(i) the Age Appropriate Design Code,(ii) the Online Safety Act 2023,(iii) the ‘curriculum principles’ section of the final report of the 2025 Curriculum and Assessment Review, and(iv) any other standards of privacy or online safety which apply to educational settings, and(b) provide a helpline or adequate system for reporting any hazards, privacy breaches, or safety failures.(3) In establishing that the software meets the standards set out in subsection (2)(a), the Secretary of State must consult with—(a) experts in data protection and online safety,(b) educators,(c) curriculum and school representatives, and(d) any other parties the Secretary of State deems relevant.(4) Software tools included on the register must be whitelisted by school network firewall systems.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure a minimum level of access to websites for students to learn about computer science and AI as part of their school education, by requiring the Secretary of State to prepare a register of suitable software tools which must be whitelisted - and therefore remain accessible - by school firewall systems.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 227 is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. We started with AI during Oral Questions what is now yesterday afternoon. We considered the use of AAI in the debate on Amendment 209 yesterday evening. We are now back with AI within edtech. Amendment 227 is about ensuring that a minimum level of provision of software tools, including websites, is available to every pupil in England, regardless of the school they attend.
Over the last six months, I have worked with Professor Peyton Jones from the University of Cambridge and the Raspberry Pi Foundation to develop proposals for a level 3 qualification in data science and AI. This is being done in consultation with the relevant team in the Department for Education.
Importantly, this level 3 qualification would not be just for those sixth-formers who will go on to read computer science at university but, first and foremost, for the professionals of the future, such as lawyers, economists and doctors. The aim is to give those pupils in the final two years of school sufficient knowledge and experience of up-to-date AI to enable them to use it properly in their time at university and at the start of their professional careers.
If the UK is to have a workforce ready to take advantage of the opportunities that AI offers, AI education needs to begin at school. I know that His Majesty’s Government recognise this. They have just published a set of standards which generative AI products should meet to be considered safe for users in educational settings. However, these are intended mainly for edtech developers and suppliers to schools and colleges, not schoolteachers and administrators.
During a workshop organised by the Raspberry Pi Foundation last November, I met teachers from all types of schools who were keen to learn more about a level 3 qualification in data science and AI. I soon discovered that IT departments in many schools today have a strict, if misguided, interpretation of the Online Safety Act. As far as they are concerned, the safest way to prevent pupils accessing harmful or inappropriate material while on school premises is to bar them from accessing any website, even and especially OpenAI’s. There are other schools, of course, where the staff in the IT department operate a more nuanced firewall policy.
This amendment seeks to ensure that there is an irreducible minimum set of software tools, including websites, which every pupil in any school in England will be able to access during the school day. Pupils should be prevented from accessing websites which may lead to harm, but they should instead have access to websites with strong educational missions; for example, Code.org or MathsWatch. These would be included in a register of software tools permitted in schools and whitelisted by the school network firewall system.
Schools would be free to add other websites if they wished to do so, but the amendment would ensure that all pupils in England had access to a minimum set of whitelisted software tools, enabling them to learn about data science and AI as part of their school education. I beg to move.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, Amendments 238 to 240 are in my name and those of my noble friends Lady Cass and Lord Russell. I support Amendment 227 in the name of my noble friend Lord Tarassenko. I start by thanking the Minister and her officials for the engagement that we have had since Committee. These amendments, unlike in the previous grouping, are all about a single thing: the uses of technology in our schools. I feel that they are long overdue; we have seen many of them before in our deliberations on the Data (Use and Access) Bill, as well as earlier in this Bill.
Less than a fortnight ago, the Secretary of State delivered a speech in which she said that we are in the middle of a technology revolution in education and that technology is moving so quickly that:
“The world of even 5 years ago is gone forever—already a lost, obsolete age”.
We are in a time of change, but I am very concerned that this uncritical view of tech is difficult for schools. The Secretary of State is dismissing long-standing educational practices, honed by experience and research, in favour of technology, some of which is proven to be unsafe and to invade privacy, and much of which has yet to be tested.
I will go through the amendments quickly. Amendment 238 would require the Secretary of State to prepare a statutory code of practice on the efficacy of educational technology within 18 months of the Act’s passing, and a certification scheme for minimum pedagogical standards for edtech procurement in schools. In December, the Minister wrote to me to say that the Government were developing a new approach to certify edtech products to make certain that they are safe and fit for purpose, through an accreditation service and statutory guidance. It seemed from the letter that she was referring to filtering and monitoring, which I will come to, but I would be grateful if she would clarify that when she responds.
The problem is that the process by which we are interrogating edtech is far slower than the process by which we are introducing it into our schools. Although I welcome the idea that the Government will test novel products and consult a wide group of people, unless I am mistaken, the regime does not offer a certification scheme that guarantees the learning outcomes of edtech.
It is for that reason that I also support my noble friend Lord Tarassenko’s Amendment 227. He and I have worked on a number of issues that seek to apply existing rules to technology to ensure that those who develop it consider the needs of individuals and communities into which it is deployed. Given that my noble friend has given a detailed explanation of his whitelist amendment, I will not reiterate it now, but I commend this amendment to the Government, because it is a model for how we should deal with edtech more broadly: insist on existing standards, make adherence visible and, in doing so, make a well-designed, private, positive use case for tech in schools. Without the existing standards, we cannot see what the edtech is doing.
Amendment 239 requires the Government to set statutory standards for filtering and monitoring systems used in schools. This amendment is marginally different from the one that I tabled in Committee, in that it clarifies adherence to data collection practices, that there is nothing in them that prevents staff carrying out their safeguarding duties, and that the standards would be checked with real-time tests established through a certification scheme with which Ofsted would check that schools complied.
I have been pressing this issue for over five years and yet we have failed to solve the problem. The introduction of generative AI means that we are going backwards and I believe that the Government have turned to guidance again: they have updated their filtering and monitoring standards only this month. I am pleased to see that that guidance now clarifies that barriers to illegal content must be switched on at all times and I believe that the Minister will also commit to consultation.
However, experts at the UK Safer Internet Centre suggest that seven of the 24 filtering and monitoring systems used in the UK do not currently meet the standards that filter for illegal content and only three of them currently provide clear evidence that they can analyse and block generative AI content in real time, as the new standards require. The same experts say that market compliance is uneven, that schools are dependent on providers’ self-assessments and that there is a serious gap between policy intent and consistent implementation. We need to remove the inconsistency, meet basic safety requirements and insist that they are routinely checked. It is not right that schools are left with the burden of working out what the system they have paid for does or does not do. I understand that many school leaders believe they comply with filtering and monitoring standards, but do not. I worry that the Government are overestimating compliance overall.
It is a tragedy that we are discussing this at midnight. This amendment should have been put in front of the House. I remind noble Lords who are in the Chamber or reading this in Hansard that Frankie Thomas lost her life, and her parents, who campaigned fiercely for these amendments, have for five years been told by Minister after Minister that this would be put right, and it still has not been. I ask the Minister to give me some hope that this will be put right in statute at the basic level we require and that experts are asking for. Obviously, there will be no vote this evening.
Finally, Amendment 240 would require the ICO to issue a code of practice for educational settings. On Report of the data Bill, the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, gave firm commitments that the Government would use their powers to require the ICO to publish a new code of practice. In Committee of this Bill, the Minister said the ICO was under a commitment to produce an edtech code of practice, but the Minister’s letter to me of 16 December said the Government will lay regulations in the second half of 2026 requiring the ICO to begin work on the edtech code. This is political snakes and ladders. I am back at the beginning. In the old world—which is gone for ever and obsolete—it was not doable that every movement, emotion and learning outcome of a child could be taken by a commercial company from school and pushed into the commercial world to be exploited.
Amendment 240—which I have been promised twice by two different Ministers—would set a clear time limit of six months after the Act’s passing within which an ICO code of practice for education must be established. As set out in the Minister’s letter, it will be more than 18 months from when Ministers first committed to it that it would be started. Can she speed that promise right up?
Each of these amendments asks the Government to set the standards so that tech can do the technology, the teachers can do the teaching and the children can flourish. Anything less is putting big tech ahead of children.
Baroness Cass (CB)
I will be brief, given the time. I will talk about only two things and try to keep noble Lords awake with them: academic passion and the gut microbiome. That will keep noble Lords on their toes.
On academic passion, when I was president of the paediatric college, we thought we did not have enough female professors of paediatrics. I adhered to that view until, one day, two of them were in my office at the same time, tearing strips out of each other so aggressively that I thought: “Yes, we need more of these people, but we should never let two be in one room at the same time”.
I saw similar passion at an educational conference; the passion of those educational academics was quite something. There were arguments about whether assessment drives learning, between those who believe in it and those who do not. Similarly, there was an equally colourful argument about teaching children to read with phonics versus other methods.
The striking thing about these academics is that, while years have gone into academic research and there are all sorts of controversies, the point is that everyone who is in this field is interested in educational outcomes, not commercial incomes. That is the difference with what we are seeing in the technology we are serving up to our children.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I put my name to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for a very simple reason. An awful lot of what we have been discussing today, and in recent days in Committee, is about trying to make this Bill as child-centric and school-centric as possible. There is a common theme running through many of these amendments. Given the pace at which the world is changing and the challenges that parents, schools, teachers and children have, to allow each individual entity to try to navigate their way through these changes in a wonderfully sort or British laissez-faire way will be wholly unrealistic and will not produce good outcomes.
Whether or not one likes to compare this country to them, examples of countries that have very centralised approaches to identifying what is safe and what is not safe for children include the People’s Republic of China—which, I remind noble Lords, has the only parliamentary assembly larger than your Lordships’ House—and France, to which some hereditary Peers perhaps have some antipathy for ancestral reasons. In both cases, those countries take it upon themselves systematically to proactively try to identify what is safe and what is not safe.
As an example that I think I may have mentioned in Committee of what can go wrong, and is going wrong, one of the best known technologies in classrooms now is Google Classroom. Let us say that you are on Google Classroom, provided through the school, you are being asked to use that to do a project, and that project is something to do with geography. To complete your project, you naturally go to Google Maps, which is conveniently there on the screen as part of the cluster of products linked into Google Classroom. The minute you leave Google Classroom and go on to Google Maps, you as a child and you as a school lose every protection you previously had for your data. Everything suddenly becomes visible to Google, and the data becomes saleable. It is making money out of the schoolchildren who are using the apps linked to Google Classroom.
One has to understand the financial model that these very successful companies use. We cannot expect individual schools and the data-processing officers within schools, who will be teachers who probably have multiple other responsibilities, to be on top of all the changes taking place in the products being sold in a very alluring way to schools. The companies will often say that this is being done with the overt or tacit approval and backing of His Majesty’s Government, which may or may not be true. It is extraordinarily difficult for these schools to identify what is safe and not safe, and what is effective in terms of outcome and what is less effective, because there is no moderating body at the moment that is trying to make sense of this on behalf of these schools, which are being assailed on all sides by multiple pressures.
On the one hand, we have a Government who are implying that this is good and we need more of it. Simultaneously, there is all the debate we are having about the amount of time we are spending on screens and the way we are using screens possibly having very unfortunate side-effects. To have all of this going on at the same time without any clear guidance and sense of direction from His Majesty’s Government is distinctly unhelpful. All these amendments are simply asking the Government to take a lead, to provide in a totally apolitical way some clarity about what is safe and what is not safe, to put processes in place to ascribe responsibility to those bodies capable of doing this, to do it in a co-ordinated way and, above all, to remember that we are talking about are the short, medium, and long-term interests of children.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, it is a bit like the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, having the two doctors in the room and great passion. It reminds me a bit of this Chamber, actually: we can certainly go for it at times.
I normally shy away from edtech, but I thought, “No, come on, grow up, Storey, you need to look at this carefully”. I went into teacher mode, I am afraid. I have some general thoughts. All the amendments grapple with the tension between protecting children and preparing them for the digital world. We need to balance parental rights, children’s educational needs and teachers’ autonomy. Technology is neither inherently good nor bad, and implementation and context matter. Finally, there is the risk of one-size-fits-all solutions not accounting for diverse school context and pupils’ needs.
I turn first to Amendment 227:
“Register of software tools permitted in schools”.
There are positives, are there not? This would ensure minimum safety and privacy standards for educational software, protect children from inappropriate content or data harvesting, and address current inconsistencies in firewalls, as some schools overblock, preventing legitimate learning. What are the concerns? There is a risk of creating a bureaucratic bottleneck as innovation in edtech moves faster than government approval processes. It could stifle teachers’ ability to use emerging tools or respond to pedagogical needs. Whitelisting requirements could be too rigid. What about trial periods for new tools? And who decides what meets curriculum principles could become politically contentious.
Then I look at Amendments 234, 235 and 236 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Their intent is to reduce screen time for young children, which is particularly important for early years development and the reception baseline. They address equity concerns that not all families might have reliable devices or internet access at home. Handwriting skills and motor development remain important, especially for young children. The amendments reduce the potential for cheating or AI assistance in assessments. They give parents agency over the child’s screen exposure. From head teacher experience, I say that some parents are deeply concerned about excessive screen time and lack of control.
The concerns are that reducing screen time might disadvantage students who are more comfortable with digital tools. It could also limit the development of general computer skills and risk making education feel out of step with modern skills. It could create additional administrative burdens for schools, as managing two parallel systems could be impractical for certain subjects beyond just computing, and might inadvertently stigmatise children whose parents opt out. So it is over to the Minister to unravel the pros and the cons and tell us what we should do.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I start by acknowledging, as I am sure others in the House felt while listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, her many years of battling—I am sure it feels like battling—on this important area. I hope I speak on behalf of all of us, and I think I do, in thanking her for her work in this field.
Every day we see more options to include edtech in our classrooms and different forms of technology and tools, and indeed in our homes for homework purposes. With that in mind, I express the support of these Benches for Amendments 238, 239 and 240 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I hope very much that we will get a firm date for the publication of a code of practice on the efficacy of edtech and on the use of children’s data. That is ever more pressing in a week when the Government have promised to roll out AI tutoring in schools. Of course, they are doing so with the best of intentions, but it creates an imperative to ensure that such tutoring is effective not just in engagement, where the evidence is pretty good, but, crucially, in learning, where the evidence is much less so. Indeed, a recent international study showed that the use of AI tutors resulted in improved homework grades but worse exam results when compared to those children who followed traditional approaches, suggesting that, without great care, edtech tools can be adopted that do not translate into long-term memory and deep learning.
The message we have really heard in all the speeches tonight is the need for pace from the Government, and I am sure the Minister has heard that. The noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, also made a powerful case for his Amendment 227 and the strength of using existing standards to try to accelerate things and come up with a plan as quickly as possible.
I have brought back the three amendments that I tabled in Committee. Amendment 234 would ensure that all public exams could be completed by hand, Amendment 235 would remove the use of devices from the reception baseline assessment, and Amendment 236 would give parents the right to opt out of device-based homework, with some limits to accommodate medical and other needs. These need to be seen in the context of an ever-growing use of devices, which includes not just the ability to complete homework but also, in the case of personal devices, the power to distract through social media in particular. Parents are clear that when children are expected to use a personal device for homework, that erodes their ability to make the case for a phone-free or device-free evening or weekend.
I understand that some schools have concerns about how this would work in practice, but I think the Overton window has shifted on this issue too in the less than six months since we last debated it. It seems like the Government are moving in the opposite direction with the introduction of AI tutors, but I hope the Minister will reassure the House that that is not the case. As one expert wrote recently:
“If exams go fully digital, handwriting instruction could quickly be marginalised, and note-taking by hand be swapped out for a digital device with AI aids by pragmatic teachers and tech-loving students”.
Similarly, he wrote:
“Homework already jumps to online apps with assistive supports and AI guidance. There is little thought or complaint about how our brain may respond differently to screen scrolling and that of the physical act of writing on the page”.
There is so much evidence about the importance of physical handwriting in learning, and we are concerned that the move to using ever more screen-based learning will impact on that.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As we turn to the amendments in group 11, which are, of course, on educational technology, I thank noble Lords for their focus during this debate on safety, effectiveness and fairness. The Government share these aims. We want schools and parents to have confidence in the tools being used and innovation that supports learning while protecting pupils’ data and well-being.
We are clear that technology used in our schools must support learning and children’s development. It must not expose children to harm, undermine trust or operate without appropriate safeguards. The question before the House is not whether action is required—action is already under way—but how we ensure that protections are robust and enforceable and can keep pace with rapid technological change.
I turn first to Amendment 227, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, and Amendment 238, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, which seek to strengthen assurance that education technology is safe, effective and permitted for use in schools through the introduction of a statutory mechanism. At this point, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, for the work that he was talking about with DfE to develop important new qualifications, which we are grateful for and which the Government will certainly want to maximise the use of.
However, the amendments before us address that concern—the concern about whether tech is safe and effective—in a way that the Government do not believe is appropriate and cannot support, because they do it by treating safety and educational effectiveness as the same regulatory question when they are not. There is a clear distinction between product safety and pedagogical efficacy, and it is essential that we respond to each in the right way. If a tool is not safe, it should not be used in schools at all.
That is why we have already introduced robust safety standards for generative AI, which will set clear expectations for tech companies to follow. That said, providing clarity for schools is key, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for providing additional information on this point earlier this week. We are committed to going further, and we are therefore considering the benefits of consulting on a certification scheme to apply to generative AI tools in education.
Product safety cannot be achieved through a rushed government-compiled register but must be delivered through legally robust and independent certification. Educational effectiveness is different. Whether a tool improves learning is not a universal yes or no question, and it cannot be certified in the same way as safety. What works will vary by age group, subject, setting and approach, and it will evolve over time as the technology itself develops. Attempting to fix this through rigid certification risks undermining professional judgment and stifling innovation without delivering better outcomes for children.
That is why we are working with AI and education experts on new benchmarks for AI use in education, including tests to make sure that products meet national expectations for pedagogy. Our EdTech Evidence Board is developing a clear, publishable framework for assessing effectiveness, including expectations on pedagogy, evidence, outcomes, equity and inclusion, and clarity for schools.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, for clarifying the intent of his Amendment 227 by stating that he was looking for a minimum list of approved tools. I believe that our work on evidence will precisely support that aim.
We are also investing £23 million to expand the edtech test bed into a four-year programme to test technology and AI tools in real classroom settings with independent evaluation. This approach provides schools and colleges with confidence in what works without locking them into a static list. Our aim is to establish a credible pedagogical bar that is fair to suppliers, usable for schools and capable of evolving, rather than a rigid statutory regime that would quickly fall behind technological change.
Amendment 239, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, focuses on filtering and monitoring systems and seeks to increase confidence, through certification, that products used in schools are effective and appropriate. As I noted in Committee, schools are already expected to have filtering and monitoring systems in place through the Keeping Children Safe in Education framework. However, we agree that more can be done to provide clarity and confidence. I am therefore pleased to confirm that the Government will consult on a scheme to certify filtering and monitoring products used in schools, which would reinforce safety standards and allow schools to be confident that products are aligned with them. Alongside this, we have strengthened our guidance to make it clear that filtering solutions must be designed so that illegal blocklists cannot be disabled, overridden or altered. Consulting will allow us to develop a certification scheme that is proportionate and effective in education settings. We therefore do not feel that a statutory obligation is necessary at this stage.
Amendment 236, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raises concerns about on-screen homework and proposes a parental right to exemption. We share the principle that no child should be disadvantaged due to a lack of access to devices, but we remain clear that decisions about homework are best made by schools in partnership with families and reflecting local circumstances. Many schools already work closely with parents to understand access issues and provide alternatives where needed. We do not have evidence to suggest that legislating in this way would be proportionate or beneficial.
There has been considerable debate about screen time, but it is important not to conflate personal and educational use. When applied well, education technology can improve outcomes and accessibility and help pupils, including neurodiverse children, to engage more confidently. The aim is not more screen time but better learning delivered safely. The Government’s recent announcement of £1.6 million for assistive technology lending libraries reflects this commitment to inclusion, particularly for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities.
I turn to Amendment 235, from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on the reception baseline assessment. We share the belief that assessment should be appropriate and fair. However, a blanket prohibition or rigid requirement in primary legislation would remove needed flexibility, including where digital approaches support accessibility while non-digital options still remain available. As we discussed at some length in Committee, the reception baseline assessment includes some digital elements, but it also uses verbal responses and small toys, with no expectation of prior screen use; a paper-based version remains available in exceptional cases. The revised version has been in development since 2018 and was trialled extensively with pupils during that time. It has been in general use since September, and we have received positive feedback from teachers on pupil engagement. For these reasons, a restrictive legislative approach is not necessary, and the proposed timescales would be impractical and expensive.
Amendment 234, from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to ensure that secondary education exams are completed by hand rather than with a digital device, subject to specific exceptions. Ofqual is currently consulting on how on-screen exams should be regulated. It is proposing a highly controlled and limited introduction, with rigorous safeguards. The vast majority of exams would still be with pen and paper. Each exam board could submit proposals to introduce a maximum of two new on-screen specifications, but not in the highest-entry subjects. We have worked closely with Ofqual to consider the potential benefits and risks. Ofqual has also published the evidence base that has informed its consultation. Research shows that on-screen exams may deliver a range of potential benefits over the long term, including improving assessment validity, accessibility and efficiency. We therefore remain of the view that it is not appropriate to fix a highly restrictive policy position in legislation, but of course we encourage interested parties to respond to Ofqual’s consultation.
Finally, Amendment 240 from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, seeks to require the Information Commissioner’s Office to produce an edtech code of practice for children’s data. We fully agree on the importance of strong protections for children’s data. At Second Reading of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology confirmed that the Information Commissioner would be required to publish codes of practice for AI and automated decision-making, followed by a dedicated edtech code, and this sequencing is deliberate. Developing the AI code first will inform the edtech code, providing greater clarity and coherence for organisations, schools and families. Accelerating the edtech code ahead of this work would risk duplication and confusion rather than strengthening protections.
I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on 16 December to confirm that regulations will be laid requiring the Information Commissioner to produce these codes, beginning with the AI code and followed by the edtech code. I am pleased that work on the AI code is already in progress. I am also aware that DSIT officials have been in touch with the noble Baroness to discuss the development of the regulations that will require the ICO to prepare the AI code, and we would welcome her support in getting those regulations right. We share the same aims, but we do not believe that legislating in the way proposed would deliver better outcomes for children or schools. The Government’s approach is proportionate, evidence-led and capable of adapting as technology evolves. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, she talked, in relation to my Amendment 236 and homework, about the Government’s concerns about equality of access to devices at home, but she did not address the point I raised about the increasing number of parents who want to have a screen-free evening at home, or screen-free weekends as a household. What would she say to those parents?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
In those cases, I would expect every school thinking about its homework policy to have engaged with parents on the details of how that homework policy was going to work, but I think what was proposed by the noble Baroness in this amendment would limit the ability of schools to have those conversations and to make the decisions that were appropriate for them. It is on that basis that we are resisting it.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
Very briefly, given the time, I just want to reassure noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that none of the amendments—not just mine—stops the use of edtech; they introduce rules for its development and introduction into schools. For example, the whitelist is an irreducible minimum to ensure that all students in schools in England would have access to this minimum set of tools. Of course, schools will be entirely free to add to the whitelist appropriate websites that they felt would help the educational attainment of their children. So it is not about stopping but enabling, through a minimum set of tools, a whitelist, and about schools being able, if they felt it was appropriate, to add to that whitelist.
Lord Addington
“Obligation to deliver the National Curriculum to a child with SENDIn exercising any duty to secure that the National Curriculum is taught to a pupil for whom special educational provision is made, the proprietor of a school must ensure that—(a) there are effective arrangements in place to identify, as early as reasonably practicable, pupils who may have special educational needs or disabilities,(b) for each such pupil, a written SEND support plan is prepared and regularly reviewed, setting out the adjustments, adaptations or disapplications from the National Curriculum, and any additional provision, reasonably required for that pupil to make progress, and(c) teachers and other staff have sufficient time, training and access to specialist advice to implement that plan, and to refine it in response to the pupil’s progress.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make clear that, in relation to children with SEND, the duty to teach the National Curriculum must be exercised in a way which enables schools to identify needs early and to prepare and deliver a tailored SEND support plan. It is intended to give schools greater capacity and professional agency to adapt or depart from the National Curriculum where necessary, and to ensure staff have the time, training and support needed to act on children’s SEND needs.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the two amendments in this group were designed to, shall we say, spur the Government to tell us where we are with the developments on special educational needs. Basically, they are saying that we should have a structure you can teach all the way through. I do not think there is much point in saying any more, so I will ask but one question. Is the Minister, speaking on behalf of the Government, in a position to give us a date, preferably not in general terms of “soon”, “possibly” or “imminently”, but a date in time—possibly the number of weeks: let us start low and build up—when we will get the White Paper? When will we start to see what the Government think is appropriate? That is not too much to ask; it is already roughly half a year late. So, just that: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name to try to extract an answer from the Government.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his two amendments. The establishment of a national body is a factor that needs to be considered in the important and pressing issue of special education needs and disabilities. There is certainly the argument for a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence equivalent for SEND. But the most important point, in our view, is that, whatever the approach taken in the Government’s forthcoming White Paper, it is based upon firm evidence.
The same principle applies to the noble Lord’s other amendment, which would introduce an obligation to deliver the national curriculum to children with special education needs and disabilities. Whatever approach is taken, it must also align with the existing evidence base.
An incredibly diverse and wide-ranging list of requirements is put on schools for children with education, health and care plans. Although it may be possible to deliver the national curriculum in line with these—we note that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, allows for disapplications—if the Government were to accept this, we would suggest an extensive pilot scheme to undertake a full, top-down and bottom-up approach, ensuring rigorous testing before introduction.
We hope, in line with the request of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the Minister will also be able to confirm that curriculum policy will feature in the coming White Paper—and please can we have a date?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Much as I try to satisfy Members in the House of Lords—for all the good it does me—no, you cannot have a date. Come on—everybody knows that you cannot have a date, even at one o’clock in the morning. But I will try to respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in his amendments.
Just to be clear, as a starting point, we share the noble Lord’s ambition for every child to have an education that meets their needs. We are determined to fix the SEND system and rebuild families’ trust by improving inclusivity and SEND expertise in schools, giving teachers the tools to identify and support needs early, and strengthening accountability for inclusion. The amendments the noble Lord has raised speak to the heart of our vision: an inclusive education system, built on strong leadership, evidence-based early intervention and high-quality teaching for every learner.
Amendment 228 seeks to place a new statutory duty on schools to adapt the national curriculum for individual pupils. We agree that children’s needs must be identified early and met well, but we fear that adding a new statutory requirement risks creating vague expectations around “sufficient” time and training, which could invite dispute rather than help schools.
Since Committee, we have continued constructive engagement with SEND organisations, including on identifying and supporting needs early and consistently, and on workforce development. We have recently announced £200 million to be invested over the course of this Parliament to upskill staff in every school, college and nursery, ensuring a skilled workforce for generations to come. This builds on at least £3 billion for high-needs capital between 2026-27 and 2029-30, to support children and young people with SEND or those who require alternative provision.
Amendment 229 proposes the establishment of a national body for SEND. We are aware of the challenges in the SEND system and how urgently we need to address them. However, as stated in Committee, we are concerned that a new body would simply create unnecessary bureaucracy. Our reforms will be set out in the forthcoming schools White Paper and will be underpinned by principles in line with the concerns the noble Lord has raised, and informed by continuing engagement with parents, teachers and experts, including through the recent national conversation on SEND. We are committed to supporting children with SEND through early identification, access to the right support at the right time, high-quality adaptive teaching and effective allocation of resources.
Noble Lords will not have too long to wait. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Addington (LD)
Well, it was worth a try. At least we did not hear that when the moon is full and the wind is high, we shall get a report, but it sounded almost like that. I look forward to this when it happens and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
“Establishment of a national children’s wellbeing measurement programme(1) The Secretary of State must establish a national children’s wellbeing measurement programme.(2) A programme established under this section must—(a) conduct a voluntary annual online national survey of the wellbeing of children in relevant schools in England;(b) make provision for school, parental and student consent to participation in the survey, ensuring that participation is voluntary and that results are handled confidentially;(c) provide central analysis of data and support for schools in the administration of the survey;(d) regularly publish the results of the survey and provide relevant data to participating schools, local authorities and other public bodies for the purposes of improving children’s wellbeing.(3) For the purposes of this section, “wellbeing” includes the drivers of wellbeing, including nutrition, physical activity, participation in arts, culture and entertainment and any other factors the Secretary of State deems relevant.(4) For the purposes of this section, “relevant schools” includes academy schools, alternative provision, maintained schools, non-maintained special schools, independent schools, and pupil referral units.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the department to introduce a national wellbeing measurement programme, based on a survey that would be voluntary for schools and pupils. The intention is to protect the anonymity of participants, ensure that no one is compelled to take part, and safeguard the privacy of any information provided.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 233, to which my name is attached, in the place of the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, who apologises that he is unable to be present. I will also speak briefly to my Amendment 237.
I am sure many of us were struck by the passionate arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, and others in Committee for a national well-being measurement programme. The need for a holistic, regular survey of young people’s experiences remains pressing. Surveys show that the UK’s young people have some of the lowest well-being in Europe and the second worst in the OECD, according to PISA data.
Amendment 233 would provide for an optional online well-being survey, delivered annually in schools, with centralised support, administration, analysis and data storage. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Layard and Lord Watson, for adding their names to this amendment as well. It is not calling for that data to be published or used in any way to penalise schools, and the wording requires confidentiality and consent at three levels: schools, parents or carers, and pupils. It is a fundamental point of this amendment that the survey is optional.
A national scheme such as this would give young people a louder voice and would create a shared evidence base that would allow us to make a shift to prevention and early intervention across a wide range of services and issues that impact on well-being. It would also promote action outside school gates to support young people. This is important because schools alone are not responsible for our children’s well-being; we all are. The new national youth strategy highlights that fact, but without good data the Government will fund the scheme yet be unable to measure its impact.
I recognise that since we began debating this Bill, the Minister’s department has begun consulting on a pupil experience framework, and this is a positive first step. However, there are two notable exceptions in the draft that I feel substantially reduce its potential. First, there are no proposed questions on psychological well-being and, secondly, there is no intent to collate or publish any of the data. I am very keen to hear from the Minister whether the Government are willing and able in some way to address these concerns. On this amendment, I end by pointing out that it is popular. According to a recent YouGov poll, 75% of parents agree that to improve young people’s well-being we need to measure it. More than 60 organisations included in the Our Well-being, Our Voice campaign, which includes the Association of School and College Leaders and the Local Government Association, are keen to see this introduced.
I now turn to my Amendment 237 on the vital topic of mental health support in schools. Mental health support teams are already making an important contribution, particularly in providing early intervention for children with mild to moderate mental health needs. The Government’s commitment to expanding these teams and, indeed, to piloting an enhanced model, is very welcome, but the evidence from schools, families and practitioners is clear. The current model does not work for all children. There is a well-recognised group of children whose needs are too complex for these low interventions, yet who do not anything like meet the threshold for specialist support. These children are often referred to as the missing middle. Too many of them are left without timely or appropriate help, and their needs often escalate as a result. As a consequence of perverse incentives within the system, children must become more unwell before they can access the support they need.
Many children also experience distress to do with family relationships or developmental issues. They benefit from therapeutic support that cannot always be delivered within the strictly structured and time-limited interventions often offered by mental health support teams. This amendment seeks to address that gap by ensuring that, alongside existing provision, children can access school-based counselling delivered by appropriately registered practitioners. It would create a clearer and more appropriate pathway for those whose needs are not currently being met and reduce pressure on CAMHS. I know that many schools are already trying to fill this gap by funding counselling services themselves, often at a significant cost to already overstretched budgets. The result is an uneven and unsustainable system in which access to support depends on geography or local resources rather than need. By placing this expectation in legislation, I feel that we can create greater consistency and equity. I also very much support Amendment 242 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, which I will leave him to outline. I beg to move.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, nine months after Second Reading, in which I spoke, it falls to me to speak to the last of the, by my tally, 254 amendments on Report, on top of 725 amendments tabled in Committee, so we certainly had maximum scrutiny of this Bill in your Lordships’ House.
I shall speak to my Amendment 242 and support the two other amendments in this group. Amendment 242 is similar to the one I moved in Committee in September. In that debate and in subsequent correspondence, the Minister confirmed the Government’s commitment to the principle of whole-school approaches, but she also made it clear that existing guidance will remain non-statutory and that the key support programmes that are now closed will not be reintroduced.
As a result, significant inequity in provision remains, and that is the reason that I have returned with this amendment on Report. Children’s mental health and well-being are a significant concern, and recent statistics highlight that school is a major determinant of children’s lived experience and mental health, but the voluntary guidance on whole-school approaches to mental health and well-being has reached its limits after being first published in 2015.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of Amendment 233, which I also supported in Committee. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, the UK’s young people have the lowest well-being in Europe and the second worst in the OECD. We rightly talk about improving children’s well-being but, without reliable data, we are left guessing what works. This is costly, inefficient and ultimately unfair to young people, who face increasing pressures today from rising anxiety to declining physical activity to a lack of opportunity.
As we have heard, this amendment would help to address that gap by proposing a voluntary, confidential national survey. This would give schools and policymakers a clear picture of what children are experiencing academically, emotionally and physically. Better data leads to better policy and ultimately to better outcomes.
The key point is that this is voluntary, not compulsory. I believe that most schools would welcome the opportunity to participate, because good data helps them identify issues earlier, target support more effectively and spend their money better. My noble friend Lord Moynihan expressed his strong personal support for this amendment when it was before us in Committee and said that regular well-being measurement can also support early intervention, helping schools to identify problems before they escalate and reducing cost and long-term pressure on health and education services.
This amendment provides a proportionate, evidence-led way to support schools, strengthening accountability and improving outcomes for young people, and capturing key drivers of well-being such as physical activity, nutrition and access to arts and culture. Well-being, attainment and long-term opportunity are inseparable. If we want a policy to be driven by what generally helps children to thrive, this national children’s well-being measurement programme would be a very good step forward.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of Amendment 233, as I was not able to speak on it in Committee. I am supportive of the other amendments in this group too.
The Labour Party manifesto stated that
“nothing says more about the state of a nation than the wellbeing of its children”,
which is music to the ears of many of us. But if we are to know what the state of our nation is through the lens of children’s well-being, we need to measure that well-being nationally, comprehensively and regularly.
Many of us warmly welcomed the idea of a children’s well-being Bill but, when it emerged, were a bit disappointed that it did not have that much to say about children’s well-being explicitly. This amendment would help to put well-being explicitly at the heart of the Bill, with implications for both the main parts. I hope the Government will now look favourably on this modified version of the amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I strongly support Amendment 233, as I did in Committee, as well as the other amendments in this group. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who reflected what many of us have been saying: the children’s well-being Bill has been short on well-being. Earlier—much earlier, yesterday now—we were talking about sport, culture, PSHE and citizenship education. But we need to see what does and does not work if we are going to deliver some of the changes that are clearly so urgently needed.
I will refer to one survey: the National Parent Survey 2025, conducted by Parentkind, which found that unhappiness among children doubles between primary and secondary school. The parents said that the chief reason that their children were unhappy was that they were finding lessons uninteresting: the figure was 42%, which really is telling.
I return to the Children’s Society’s Good Childhood Report 2025, already referred to, which of course was reporting on the opposite. One of its recommendations was:
“Introduce a national wellbeing measurement programme”.
It is just such an obvious thing for the Government to do.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, on these Benches, as is true across the House, of course we want our children to have the highest standards of mental health and well-being, and the data to support this, but, as in Committee, we do not support the specifics of these amendments.
On Amendment 233 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, presented this morning by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, we felt that the Minister’s response in Committee was a constructive way forward and substantially addressed the goals of the amendment, albeit perhaps not in the way that the signatories would prefer or advise. My reading of the Minister’s remarks was that the Government did commit to providing non-statutory guidance, including a standard set of questions and additional tools and resources to support implementation.
As in Committee, I am sympathetic to the gap in provision that Amendment 237 from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, seeks to address: in particular, the postcode lottery that she highlighted in her remarks this morning. I also recognise that it expressly prescribes the provision of qualified practitioners and implicitly prescribes that any interventions have a sound evidence base. As my noble friend Lady Spielman pointed out in Committee, too many interventions have been used in schools in relation to both mental health and well-being, which Amendment 242 from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, addresses, which have been shown subsequently to have caused more harm than good. That is clearly something we need to avoid.
I return to the point I made in Committee and that we have heard fervently debated on Report, including today: the single most powerful thing this Government can do to restore the mental health, well-being and sense of belonging of our children would be to keep smartphones out of school and prevent access to social media for the under-16s. Teachers, parents and their children will not thank this Government for being slow to act.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Well, as we approach nine hours of considering the 13 groups that we have got through today, I note—and I am not being churlish—that if everybody who stood up and said, “I will speak only briefly” spoke only briefly, we would have saved a reasonable amount of time.
However, let us move to the amendments. I start by assuring noble Lords that the Government are committed to improving mental health support for all children and young people, helping pupils to achieve and thrive in education. Of course, we are focused on, and have already made considerable progress in, providing access to specialist mental health professionals in every school. With that in mind, I turn to the amendments.
Amendment 233, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, and introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, intends to establish a national children’s well-being measurement programme. We welcome the added emphasis that the measurement should remain voluntary for schools. While we are committed to supporting more schools to do this effectively, legislation is not necessary.
As stated in Committee, the Government have already committed to publish non-statutory guidance helping schools to measure and act upon factors related to well-being. To do that, we are working with measurement experts, including from the Our Wellbeing Our Voice coalition, to establish standardised questions for schools to ask pupils about key modifiable factors that impact their engagement in school life and their well-being, including how this can inform their approach to promoting and supporting mental health. This will enable benchmarking, aggregation, and sharing of data and practice between schools and with partners. We are exploring whether and how this data could be collected centrally to inform national policy. In the meantime, we will continue to publish annually the data we collect centrally on pupils’ well-being and experiences in school.
Amendment 237, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, would require the Secretary of State to ensure access to professionally accredited counselling or equivalent therapeutic support in schools, alongside government commitments to expand mental health support teams. As we said in Committee, this Government will expand mental health support teams from 52% coverage of pupils and learners at the start of April 2025 to 100% by 2029. The noble Baroness makes an important point about ensuring that we provide support for pupils whose needs are too complex for low-intensity interventions but do not meet the threshold for specialist child and adolescent mental health services. That is why we will pilot enhancements to mental health support teams, developed with a range of experts, including from the counselling profession, to support more complex needs such as trauma, neurodivergence and disordered eating.
These teams already integrate with a school’s existing well-being offer, which can include counselling. However, while there is good evidence that CBT used by the teams can deliver lasting benefits, more research is needed into the effectiveness, implementation and cost efficiency of counselling in schools. Many pupils also benefit from other in-school support. It is important that schools continue to have the freedom to decide what pastoral support to offer their pupils based on need, making the best use of their funding.
Lastly, Amendment 242, tabled by my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie, seeks to require statutory guidance for schools on whole-school approaches to mental health and well-being. As I said in Committee, existing statutory duties provide schools with a strong foundation to adopt whole-school approaches and secure the support that their pupils need. Our pupil engagement framework, to be published this year and developed with Mission 44, with support from other key stakeholders, will provide schools with guidance on whole-school approaches to pupil engagement and, in turn, well-being. Together with our ongoing work on measurement as part of this framework and the expansion of mental health support teams to 100% of pupils and learners, the Government are building on existing support in a consistent and equitable way—key components of my noble friend’s amendment.
Having described the progress that the Government are already making on the range of concerns that noble Lords have outlined, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate. It is never great to get the graveyard slot, particularly on an issue that is so fundamental to the success of the Bill, and to feel so time-constrained—but that is just life, is it not? I thank the Minister for outlining the progress that I acknowledge the Government are making in this area. I still think there is more to do, which is what these amendments press at, but I was grateful for her acknowledgement of the importance of the missing middle and the involvement of the counselling profession. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
“Power to make consequential provision: Wales(1) The Welsh Ministers may by regulations make provision that is consequential on any of the following provisions of this Act—(a) section 11 (use of accommodation for deprivation of liberty);(b) section 12(5) (service of documents under Part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000);(c) section 20 (ill-treatment or wilful neglect: children aged 16 and 17);(d) sections 31 to 36 (children not in school).(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may contain only provision which would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if it were contained in an Act of the Senedd.(3) Regulations under this section may amend, repeal or revoke provision made by or under—(a) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru passed before this Act, or(b) an Act passed or made before, or in the same session of Parliament as, this Act.(4) Regulations under this section are to be made by Welsh statutory instrument (see section 37A of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 4)).(5) Except as provided by subsection (6), regulations made under this section are subject to the Senedd annulment procedure (see section 37E of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 4)).(6) Regulations made under this section that amend, repeal or revoke provision made by or under an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru, or an Act, are subject to the Senedd approval procedure (see section 37C of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 4)).(7) The power to make regulations under this section includes power to make—(a) supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision;(b) different provision for different purposes or areas.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would insert a new clause into the Bill conferring power on the Welsh Ministers to make provision that is consequential on certain provisions made by the Bill in relation to matters that are within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru.
“Power to make consequential provision: Scotland(1) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make provision that is consequential on section 11 (use of accommodation for deprivation of liberty).(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may contain only provision which would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament.(3) Regulations under this section may amend, repeal or revoke provision made by or under—(a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament passed before this Act, or(b) an Act passed or made before, or in the same session of Parliament as, this Act.(4) For provision about instruments containing regulations under this section, see section 27 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10) (Scottish statutory instruments).(5) Except as provided by subsection (6), regulations made under this section are subject to the negative procedure (see section 28 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10)).(6) Regulations made under this section that amend, repeal or revoke provision made by or under an Act of the Scottish Parliament, or an Act, are subject to the affirmative procedure (see section 29 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10)).(7) The power to make regulations under this section includes power to make—(a) supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision;(b) different provision for different purposes or areas.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would insert a new clause into the Bill conferring power on the Scottish Ministers to make provision that is consequential on Clause 11 of the Bill (use of accommodation for deprivation of liberty) in relation to matters that are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
“(i) regulations, or(ii) in relation to the amendments made to the Education Act 2002 by Schedule 3, an order;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that the reference in clause 67(1) to orders is only to orders under the Education Act 2002 (as amended by Schedule 3).
Baroness Smith of Malvern
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my amendment to Clause 67 at page 128, line 21, would change references to a “statutory instrument” containing regulations made by the Welsh Ministers to a “Welsh statutory instrument” in consequence of changes made by the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Act 2025.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to Clause 67 at page 128, line 6.