Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 10 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.