Lords Chamber

Wednesday 28th January 2026

(began 1 week, 4 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:06
None Portrait Oral questions: Plan to review the funding of the Music and Dance Scheme to ensure schools can continue to support talented children from families with lower incomes
-

My My Lord My Lord Frost My Lord Frost Oral My Lord Frost Oral Question Baroness Keeley. >> I beg leave to ask the question.
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:28
None Portrait Oral questions: Evaluation of sustainable water management solutions to address flooding events and protracted droughts in Yorkshire
-

Oral Question, the Lord Bishop of Sheffield. My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper.
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:38
15:38
None Portrait Oral questions: Assessment of the likely timescale and costs for the establishment of the National Police Service recently announced by the Home Secretary
-

Fourth Oral Question Lord McCabe.
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:47
15:47
15:48
15:48
15:49
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
When I was last police Minister in 2009 ten, I rejected the proposal to privatise forensic science services and I'm pleased I did so. The then conservative government privatised forensic sciences, and it has not been the level of service that I would wish to see in the future. In the strategic plan we've got now, we intend to bring forensic sciences under the remit of the National Policing Service. We look at the organisation of that and how it works. But I'm of the view the forensic science is key to fighting crime.

It needs to be dealt with nationally and it needs to be under strong policing and political

**** Possible New Speaker ****

management from the centre here. Message from the Commons that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Message from the Commons that they have passed the Medical Training Prioritisation Bill to which they desire the agreement of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which they desire the agreement of your Lordships. My Lords Medical Training

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords Medical Training privatisation Bill, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time. The question is that this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this. Bill be now read a first time. As many as the other opinion will say content the contrary not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content. The contents have it. My Lords, we've. Concluded oral questions for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Concluded oral questions for today. Before we move to the Report stage, we'll take a few moments for those who wish to leave the chamber
15:52
15:52
Lord Bird Portrait Lord Bird (Crossbench)
-
-
107 Lord Bird. >> I beg to rise to speak on my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to rise to speak on my amendment 107. I'm very.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pleased that this amendment is going to be discussed again.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

going to be discussed again. What troubles me is it's such a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What troubles me is it's such a small and it could be insignificant small and it could be insignificant to ask for a to ask for targets from the government is targets our targets, a part of the armoury that we use to get rid of poverty. Because if we are endeavouring to get rid of poverty, then we'll need more than targets. We will need houses, we will need training for parents so that they don't pass poverty down to the next generation.

We will need a government that will converge and coordinate all of the efforts into some form, so that they can say that they are disentangling the situation at the moment, where you have eight government departments dealing with poverty, I imagine that if we didn't have a ministry of defence and if people decided to attack this country, we would form a ministry of defence and bring everything together and not leave it to a different ministries, the same as with poverty.

Poverty is destroying us. Poverty is stopping schools from delivering on schooling. 30% of the time that teachers take are spent on the problems that are caused when poverty enters the classroom, our our health service. 50% of people who suffer from. What is it? Sorry. Cardiological cardiological. Whatever you call it, forgive me. Whatever you call it, forgive me. I've got new teeth. But the thing is, 50% of those people are suffering from food poverty.

I have used this bill. Sorry. I've used this amendment in order to raise not just the question of targets, but the government should use targets. It should have others measuring its homework rather than itself. What I have heard from the government about targets is that if you have targets, then you tend to have people massaging the figures to make it look as though the targets are being achieved, and that in fact, if you have targets, you then go after the low hanging fruit because the hardest to reach, you don't get anywhere near them because you can achieve your targets by concentrating on the fact that it's easier to help people who are the low hanging fruits.

But overall, my big question is, is targets something that could fit in a whole panoply of organised convergent energy that is used to get rid of poverty. So I'm not really here today just to talk about this amendment, but to talk about the fact that every government I know has had all sorts of initiatives to get rid of poverty, but we never see the end of poverty, 400 million for half, 4.5 million people, children caught in poverty.

And that is a tremendous indictment, not of this government, not of the last government, not even the government before that. It's the indictment of the methodology, because it's an inherited methodology. It gets passed down. Every generation of government passes down and takes the same form as other governments. And I would say, please, let's look at targets. Let's be honest about targets. But let's also begin as a society and as a chamber, to look at the idea that we follow my example and put a lot of work into the idea of having a ministry of Poverty prevention and cure, because the problem is 90% of all the money that is spent on poverty is spent on the emergency of poverty.

You cannot put all your energy into the emergency of poverty. You have to try and have cure, and you have to try and have prevention. Anyway, I'm going to end there because I haven't got an awful lot to say about targets. I've said everything. It's all in Hansard. I would love you all to consider that the government should at least allow us our targets, and then we can look at all the other things that we need over the coming months and years, all the other things where we converge and concatenate.

As I've said before, the energies necessary to get rid of poverty. I inherited poverty, and that makes me a fierce warrior to end the the inheritance of poverty. I started from behind. Most of the people who live in poverty live in poverty, and they never get to the starting line. We can't all be Boris Johnson. Thank you. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 27. Insert the new clause as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

27. Insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List. Please speak in support of the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment. Moved by. Such a warrior. Against poverty. To which. I've added my.
15:59
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-
>> I've added my. >> Name, not least as it provides. >> An opportunity to welcome. >> The government's landmark child.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The government's landmark child. Poverty strategy. Sadly, the opposition did not think it important enough to ask for a statement on it to be repeated in your Lordships House. I welcome to the strategies accompanying monitoring and evaluation framework, supported by a theory of change based on clear measures and what it calls a wide range ranging evidence base. This includes hearing directly from children, young people and families who have lived experience of poverty, building on the strong engagement with them during the strategy's development.

But what is missing is any yardstick against which stakeholders of all kinds and parliamentarians can judge the success of the strategy using the measures outlined. And this is where this amendment comes in. So I'm grateful to the noble Lord, Lord bird, and a big issue for continuing to press this, an evaluation strategy without a yardstick, targets and milestones is like putting on hamlet without the Prince. Looking back at the evidence submitted to the Child Poverty Task Force, a common theme was the need for statutory targets.

For instance, the first of eight tests set by child poverty, a coalition of over 120 organisations, was that the strategy must put in place legally binding, independently evaluated targets that build clear milestones. Similarly, for practitioners with a range of expertise and interviewed by the Child Poverty Action Group, of which I am Honorary President, were unanimous that the forthcoming strategy must publicly set targets to reduce child poverty. And just this week, the Unicef UK CEO has written that achieving the national mission to give every child the best start in life must mean a visible target for driving down child poverty.

In committee, my noble friend, the Minister made two main arguments against the inclusion of statutory targets. The first was that statute targets would not in themselves drive reductions in poverty and can be reversed. More important is the nature of the government at the time, she said. Now, I agree with her up to a point, and I don't think as the noble Lord, Lord bird has made clear, I don't think anyone argues, that targets on their own will reduce poverty. And of course, their effectiveness depends on the government of the day taking them seriously.

But it's generally believed that the existence of targets in Scotland has galvanised action there. And as I remember it, there was a time under the last Labour government when they started to lose momentum in reducing child poverty, and civil society were able to use the targets to exert the pressure that resulted them putting their feet back on the pedal. Moreover, fears of what a future government might do has not stopped the government from setting clear targets targets in their homelessness strategy.

Her other main argument was that targets risk adversely, narrowing the focus of effort to moving the children closest to the poverty line over it. Now, this is suspiciously like the argument put by the Cameron government to justify targets abolition. So I guess it's been dusted down again in Whitehall. As I made clear in committee, I disagree with it. Indeed, arguably every time the government justifiably points with pride to the big reduction in child poverty that abolition of the two child limit will affect is implicitly accepting the importance of reducing the numbers below that poverty line.

Moreover, I'm pleased that the revised amendment includes a target for reduction in deep poverty, which will help to ensure that any targets focus is not purely on moving children over the poverty line. Of course, my Lords targets can be reversed by a government of a different political persuasion, as we saw with the abolition of the Child Poverty Act 2010, in 2016. But so can any measures taken by the government, including as the opposition, have made clear, abolition of the heinous, heinous two child limit? Surely that's not an argument for the government not doing the right thing.

Statutory targets are a way of demonstrating to the electorate this government's intent and its belief in its own strategy, a refusal to accept clear targets could be interpreted as a lack of belief and as a lack of commitment to accountability. That said, in the spirit of compromise, I would concede that non-statutory targets would be better than no targets at all. I would therefore propose that, at the very least, the baseline report promised for the summer should include the kind of aspirational yet achievable targets and milestones called for by civil society and academics.

Without this acclaim for an ambitious poverty strategy won't carry the force that they deserve. While she not, she may not be able to commit the government to this, to this today, would my noble friend undertake to take this proposal back to the child poverty team responsible for drawing up the baseline report? And in fact, I just the other day received a letter from the Work and Pensions Secretary, which does, with reference to the baseline report, refer to the development of milestones.

So could my noble friend say more about this, or if not, perhaps report back to the House at Third Reading? I think a clear commitment to at least non-statutory targets and milestones would do much to strengthen the strategy's credibility with stakeholders.
16:05
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
It's a very great pleasure to follow the powerful and important follow the powerful and important speech from the noble Lady Baroness Lister and the equally important speech from the noble Lord, Lord speech from the noble Lord, Lord bird. I signed the similar amendment to this at committee, but I left the space here, and the hope against hope that a party less likely than mine would have signed up to it. And so we might have got a broader spread of support being shown.

That didn't happen. But anyway, I want to briefly, I think the point the noble Lady Baroness Lister made about a yardstick, and perhaps because I've been out campaigning on the doorstep this morning, I was thinking about an additional argument that hasn't yet been made in committee or here. This would really be a help for voters. You think about a government that starts out and it sets the targets. And then as you get to the end of the of the parliament, the next election, voters would have a very clear have they met their targets, have they done what they achieved? And what it would also do is put great pressure on all parties competing in the next election to say what is going to be your target.

You're elected to be the government. What is going to be your child poverty reduction target? And that would be something that would be really useful and clear and obvious to voters. Now, I think we've got to just acknowledge where we are now. We've already heard quite a bit about child poverty, but we've got to refer, I think, to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's analysis of the OBR figures that says the headline poverty rate between 2026 and 2029 is going to stay essentially the same, and the poorest are getting poorer.

Noble Lady Baroness Lister referred to the addition of deep poverty to this amendment. 6.8 million people across these islands are in deep poverty. That's the highest level on record, and it's hardened. That is a technical term. I've just learned the average person in poverty is now 29% below the poverty line. That was 23% in the mid 1990s. Now, one of the obvious things that would address this target and make a big difference is abolishing the benefit cap. The overall benefit cap.

I fully applaud the government's action on the two child cap, but the overall benefit cap would immediately list 300,000 children out of poverty. You would be able to see progress towards a positive target. And just finally, as the noble Lady Baroness Lister led said, I'm going to reflect on Scotland and it does show what the impact of targets have with the Scottish Child Payment, the lowest rate of child poverty on these islands is in Scotland. Still not great. Still should be much better, but 23% that compares to 31% in England and Wales and 24% in Northern Ireland.

Setting targets focuses minds and enables voters to make judgements. OK.
16:08
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Portrait Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords. I also rise to speak in support of amendment 107, moved by our noble friend Lord Bird, and I like to follow the powerful speeches made by both Baroness Lister and Baroness Bennett. This amendment is extremely timely. It supports our children, particularly those most in need. As we heard earlier, the Joseph Rowntree analysis on Child Poverty in Britain has said that 4.5 billion children are living in poverty, figures that continue to climb even after the most recent policy changes.

My Lords, these aren't abstract numbers. They are lived realities of millions of families denied the security and the opportunity every child deserves. And this amendment before us would is just goes beyond rhetoric. It would require the government to set binding targets which with clear timescales and to account publicly for each step taken towards meeting these. And I say this, my Lords, in doing so it will only emulate principles behind other statutory frameworks. Most obvious is the Climate Change Act, where parliamentary accountability has driven sustained action and cross-government focus, an issue that Lord Bird talked about in terms of eight separate departments having some sort of responsibility for child poverty.

That rigour should be applied to the fight against child poverty. Peer reviewed evidence makes clear why this matters. International literature also shows poverty has long term impacts on children's health, education attainment, future incomes. Children in low income families are most likely to suffer poor health, lower social school attainment, diminished life opportunities than their better off peers. Moreover, robust reviews find that increased family income improves children's educational and health outcomes, including family performance and future prospects. And I don't speak here, my Lords, as just reviewing literature.

I speak before you with my own lived experiences. As someone who was on school. Free school meals did get subsidised school clothing and actually couldn't afford to go to college simply because we were poor and had to go and work on a training scheme in 1988 for £27.50, working 40 hours a week unloading lorries. So these are our lived experiences, my Lord, that we bring before you today. The evidence reminds us also that policy choices matter profoundly for children's life chances and systematic measurement and accountability mechanisms are essential to gauge impact.

The government's recent published Child Poverty Strategy, mentioned earlier, focuses that its current suite of measures could lift an estimated 550,000 children out of relative poverty, and it's something that we should all aim for. But what I say is, without legal, enforced, enforceable targets, there is no guarantee that those outcomes will be delivered, my Lords, and sustained across future administrations. Targets give shape to ambition to transform good intentions into measurable progress. We would also heed lessons from within the UK and I think Scotland was mentioned earlier.

Scottish poverty targets might not be perfect, my Lords, but they have guided sustained policy focus and shown that what can outcomes are measured and monitored and progress more achievable. This amendment, my Lords, is a practical tool to ensure that Ministers cannot evade responsibility for promises they have made. It is a mechanism that will help ensure that every policy aimed at education, wellbeing, housing and family support is tested against the yardstick of whether it moves us closer to the Houston child poverty.

I therefore urge noble Lords from all sides of this House to support this amendment and help ensure that the government is held accountable to the children of our great nation. Thank you.
16:12
16:14
16:15
Lord Crisp Portrait Lord Crisp (Crossbench)
-
-
Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow so many so powerful speeches and support my powerful speeches and support my noble friend Lord bird's amendment here. I have to say that as a former chief executive of the English NHS, I know a thing or two about targets and there are some awful targets and some good ones, and I am delighted that the noble Lord Lord Barber is in his place. As the government's developed deliveries are, or whatever the right title was in those days.

Can I just say just 2 or 3 things? The first thing that the noble Lord, Lord, Lord bird said was it's very clear that targets are only part of a policy, but there's a real issue here, and not just in poverty about obesity and all other things like that, which cut across different departments for how we're going to tackle them. And I do think these cross-cutting government targets are a good thing. They also targets can galvanise. I think that was the point that the noble Lady Baroness Lister already made.

And I also think that actually there need to be clear, they need to be measurable. And I think the basic targets here are measured anyway that these figures are available. We're clear what it means by deep poverty. We're clear what it means by living in poverty. Those definitions are out there and have been out there. And you can get on and you can understand it. So I think at a high level, these could actually be very useful in just pressing forward. And the government, if it believes that this is what it wants to do, ought to put some measurement in place, as other noble Lords have said.
16:16
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, of course, Lord Bird is a a warrior. >> Passionate advocate. For the unemployed and the poor. I have a slightly different take on this. slightly different take on this. Yes, targets are important and yes, strategies are important, but how often do we say, oh, we'll sort this issue out by establishing targets. We'll sort this issue out by establishing strategies. Actually, what's important is doing something. It's no good just agreeing a target or agreeing a strategy. It's actually doing things, having policies which make a real difference, carrying out actions which make a real difference.

I am quite ashamed that we live in a society. What the fifth or sixth richest country in the world. And yet only the other day the LGU published information which said that teachers are even with breakfast clubs and free school meals. Teachers are increasingly feeding and clothing their pupils when they come to school, the fifth or sixth richest country in the world and were doing that. I am ashamed that we've got a million young people not in a job, not in employment or not in training.

That can't be right in the fifth or sixth richest country in the world. So it's actions that we need to take. I congratulate the government on doing away with the two child benefit cap, and that will make that is an action which will make a huge difference. Some of the other policies which governments quite rightly trot out are introducing breakfast clubs. Oh, we're going to do this on clothing. Yes, they're important, but they're not the big things that will make a difference to child children's poverty.

It's also frightening in the fifth or sixth richest country in the world, to realise that 21% of adults live in poverty, 21% of adults live in poverty. So it has to be. I hate using the word, but I will do it. It has to be a holistic approach. So it's about making sure people have jobs. If you have a job, a well-paid job, a proper job, then that helps your family. It helps your children. If you have a decent house, not with mould or damp or whatever it is that helps your child, it helps your family, it helps your self-esteem.

And if you have decent schools, as this bill is trying to build on the work of the previous government, then that is life changing as well. So let's see actions, not more targets, not more strategy, but actually something happening. My Lords.
16:19
Earl of Effingham Portrait The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
-
-
Please let me thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate, but particularly the noble Lord, Lord bird, for his relentless focus on tackling poverty through both the Big Issue and Big Issue. Invest. Investing in social enterprises, social purpose businesses and charities trying to end poverty and reduce inequality in the UK. Your Lordships House is united in its determination to to address child poverty and the range of complex issues that drive it, and whilst we fully recognise the firm intent behind this amendment, His Majesty's Loyal Opposition retains a number of reservations which we shared at Committee stage of the Bill.

We unequivocally, unequivocally hold a desire to reduce child poverty, but the issue is deeply complex. We do have concerns that legally binding targets determined by central government risk, overlooking the local and regional variances in both the causality and the experiences of child poverty. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barran highlighted in committee, the pursuit of targets can often shift the focus onto particular statistics rather than people's lived experiences. Central governments must be able to adapt to ever developing needs and realities.

In addition to enabling local authorities and organisations who are often better placed themselves to understand these esoteric local challenges, to act accordingly, we therefore welcome and seeing the details of the government's child poverty strategy when it is published in the autumn, including new monitoring and evaluation arrangements to track progress which, with the right strategy for delivery, should yield results. We once again thank the noble Lord, Lord bird, for his dedication to this vital issue. And whilst we are not able to support the amendment directly, we strongly welcome the intentions behind it.
16:22
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Minister for Women and Equalities) (Labour)
-
-
Yes. >> Yes. >> My Lords, turning to amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, turning to amendment 107, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord bird, as we've heard, which concerns placing a duty on the concerns placing a duty on the Secretary of State to set legally binding child poverty reduction targets. I just want to start by agreeing with other noble Lords that it is clear here that we have a shared objective to tackle child poverty, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord bird, for his commitment, for the campaigning that he does, as well as the engagement with the government on child poverty.

And we had, I thought, a very good meeting where we talked both about the work of the Big issue and rightful challenge to government to ensure both that the structure within government and the measurement of our objectives meet the challenge that has been set here. And I will talk about how we will ensure that that happens. I am proud that this government has now published our child poverty strategy, going far beyond rhetoric, as one noble Lord suggested we should do.

But I have to say, I don't agree with those who've argued that all governments are the same. All the suggestion that the strategy lacks credibility. Several noble Lords have quoted the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and I have to say, in their annual poverty report published yesterday, they say that the child poverty strategy is hugely welcome, particularly after the last government made no progress in reducing poverty and they welcome the child poverty strategy, delivering the projected biggest reduction in child poverty in a single parliament.

Because we have been clear in the wide ranging child poverty strategy that we have produced, that it will see the largest reduction in child poverty by any government in a single parliament, lifting 550,000 children out of poverty, principally through the expansion of free school meals and removing the two child limit. Both things that this government has already done to take up the challenge set by the noble Lord Lord story. But of course we need to both measure and demonstrate progress being made on this strategy.

I. I completely take on board that challenge. And that's why, alongside the strategy, the Monitoring and Evaluation framework, which was published alongside the strategy, set out that a baseline report will be published in the summer in summer 2026, with annual reporting on progress thereafter. It will be quite clear what progress the government is making in a range of areas. It will be possible to hold this government to account for delivering on this crucial strategy and on our objectives.

And I can say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, it will be very clear to voters as well that this government will make progress as the last Labour government did in tackling the scourge of child poverty. We recognise, my Lords, that our approach to monitoring and evaluation will need to evolve and adapt as the strategy must, reflecting the dynamic nature of poverty and the broader social and economic factors that influence it. And here I, whilst I understand the very powerful point made by the noble Lord Lord Birt about the government machinery for ensuring progress, I think it's actually a strength of the cross of the child poverty strategy, that it is explicitly cross-government.

It recognises that it will take action. It will need action in a whole range of different areas to tackle child poverty. But I take his point as well, that there needs to be a central directing part of government, and that's why we've committed to maintain a child poverty team with cross-government oversight by Ministers. These clear reporting arrangements and the focus on child poverty within government shows our commitment and leadership and will ensure that the progress that we make is transparent for all.

We will continue to work closely with the whole sector committed to tackling child poverty, as we have done in developing the strategy, and we believe that this is the best approach, rather than introducing statutory targets. For these reasons, I hope I have provided some assurance, both about the commitment of this government, the broad action that we will take as a result of the strategy and the measurement and evaluation that we will put in place in order to ensure that the public and this House can hold us to account for progress.

And on that basis, I hope that the noble Lord Lord Bird will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

feel able to withdraw his amendment. Thank you very. Much for that. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very. Much for that. I decided to join the Conservative Party. Thank you very much. Can I meet you afterwards and fill in the meet you afterwards and fill in the forms? Sorry. Forgive me. I was only joking. I've never been only joking. I've never been received such praise in the house. Thank you, thank you. What I would
16:27
Lord Bird Portrait Lord Bird (Crossbench)
-
-
Thank you, thank you. What I would say is. And I agree with Lord Storey. And what I was trying to say is that we need a toolkit, a new toolkit to kind of dismantle poverty. And having, having a, a way of measuring and a way of holding people to task because we say, this is what you said you achieved can never be, as Baroness Lister says, it can never be the be all and end all. It must be a part on the road towards the accumulation of evidence, the accumulation of opportunity, the accumulation of thinking that gets us somewhere where we've never been before.

Now I don't want to poo poo the government or any government for achieving a remarkable 450,000 young people being removed from poverty. But I'd like to ask, well, what about the other 4 million? And that's the real problem. The real problem is we are passing from generation to generation, a load of people who I have identified 90% of the people I work with in homelessness, 90% of the people I work in, in long term unemployment, 90% of the people I work with in the prison custodial system, the people who come from the inheritance of poverty, so they inherit poverty in the same way as Boris Johnson or David Cameron or anybody else, and inherits their position in the pecking order.

And if we have a situation where we have millions of people never actually arriving at the starting light line of life, then we've got a major problem. And I would think that that's where we need to concentrate our evidence and energy. I know police officers who have to intervene in poverty because they're dealing with it in the streets. They're dealing with the the violence, the the unhappiness, the mental illness, the crime and all sorts of things.

But no one has ever educated a police officer to deal with poverty. No one has ever educated a teacher to be other than a teacher. But in the course of the last 10 or 20 years, they have to take on the role of social worker. But they don't have the skills, the ability, nor the time to do it. They have to get on with being a teacher. Why are our nurses and doctors commissioned to solve our problems of poverty when they when they are not trained to do it, they should be allowed to get on with the job of making people healthy.

When you have 50% of people at my local hospital, Addenbrooke's, coming from food poverty, when that is what is made up of the people who use the hospitals and use the surgeries, then you have to ask something is going wrong. All I want is to fulfil the message I gave when I first came into this house, which was to dismantle poverty and all I really see. And I'm really glad we've got another government in. I just hope to push them and push them and push them to accept targets, but also to stand back and say, isn't it time we did an audit of what works and what doesn't work? I beg to move that my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment be withdrawn. Is it your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? It that the amendment be withdrawn? It is finally withdrawn. The next group of amendments have already group of amendments have already been debated. Lord Storey 108 to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

been debated. Lord Storey 108 to 110. Be not moved. Not moved. On. These benches are strongly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On. These benches are strongly committed to safeguarding children and protecting them from the risks of the online world. Lord Nash. As we recall, proposed amendment, which was a straightforward ban on social media, and the government are proposing the big three month big conversation from which we will come together, perhaps, and agree a way forward on these benches. We believe that it's not as simple as that. A blanket ban is not that easy. We think that there are some aspects of social media which are very important for young people and very supportive of young people, and rather a blanket ban.

We would want to see those dangerous elements of social media banned. Of course, Lord Shamash amendment was carried. It will come back at ping pong and that will be the opportunity. And I promise to come to every meeting that will be the opportunity for the parties, hopefully, to come together and agree a way forward. But in the meantime, on these benches, we'd like to test the opinion of the House on our amendment.
16:33
16:33
None Portrait Division:Amendment:108
-

The contrary, not content. Content. The amendment will be decided by a division. I will advise the House when voting is open. That. Voting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank Thank you. I I can't. Find. Find. I'm Find. I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order Order my Order my Lords. Order my Lords. The Order my Lords. The question Order my Lords. The question is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order my Lords. The question is that amendment 108 be agreed to. As that amendment 108 be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content. Ten and to the contrary, not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne, the not right by the throne, the not Sorry. Oh Oh I Oh I think. Oh I think. Oh I think. Lord Lord Feldman. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh, the question is that amendment 108 be agreed to? So. So. Yeah. So. Yeah. Yeah. So. Yeah. Yeah. The One. One. So One. So this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords My Lords there My Lords there have My Lords there have voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords there have voted contents 67, not contents 101. So the not contents have it 091191. I the not contents have it 091191. I beg your pardon, my Lords, I miss. I mistook the nine for a zero. It's 191 for the not so. The not 191 for the not so. The not Lord Lord Storey Lord Storey amendment 109 on. Storey Lord Storey amendment 109 on. 110. Not moved.

And 110 A and 110 B moved 110 C Baroness Bennett not moved. Amendments 111 and 112 moved formerly En bloc. The question is that these amendments be agreed to. As many as have that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it. Amendment 113 Baroness Walmsley not moved. Amendment 114. Lord Mohammed after Lord Mohammed of Tinsley. I should tell the House that if amendment 114 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 117 for reasons of pre-emption.

Lord Mohammed.
16:45
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Portrait Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I support amendments 114 and 118 >> I support amendments 114 and 118 in my name. In this group of amendments in relation to the cost amendments in relation to the cost of school uniforms, because this issue is not is about far more than clothing. It goes to the heart of the cost of living crisis in children's and its children's dignity and wellbeing, ultimately to their ability to learn and succeed in school. For too many families, the start of the year school year is is no longer a moment of optimism.

It's about anxiety. Parents dread opening the uniform price list, knowing compliance is mandatory and flexibility is limited. Branded Blazers, Logoed, jumpers, PE kits and specialist items often required from a single supplier, with costs running into hundreds of pounds per child payable upfront when households budgets are already under severe strain. The evidence is clear. My Lords research, commissioned by the Department of Education, shows that the average cost of school uniforms and PE kits is close to £400 per child and it rises over 440 for secondary school pupils.

These aren't trivial sums, my Lords. For families with 2 or 3 children, the cost can exceed £1,000 in a single year. For parents and low incomes insecure jobs reliant on benefits. These costs are simply not manageable. The reality for many households is stark. Parents report cutting back on food, delayed rent payments or utility payments, or taking on high street debt simply to ensure children are not penalised for incorrect uniforms. Some skip meals so their children can attend school properly dressed.

Others are forced into humiliation for asking schools for help or exemptions, knowing that support is inconsistent and often discriminatory. The consequences fall most heavily on children when families cannot afford the required uniforms, pupils are sent home isolated from lessons or disciplined because their clothing does not meet school rules. Others attend school embarrassed and anxious that they stand out or judged for their family's circumstances. This sense of shame undermines confidence and damages wellbeing. My Lord, this matter is not only for children's mental health but for their education itself.

There is strong evidence that stress and financial insecurity are linked to poor attendance, reduced concentration and low attainment. A child worried about being reprimanded for their uniform is not focussed on learning. Excessive uniform costs become a barrier to education. Rather than support it, we must also recognise that this bird is not evenly distributed. Families in areas already facing high levels of deprivation, including parts of the North East, the Midlands and coastal communities, report significantly greater difficulties affording school uniforms.

High uniform costs in these areas compound existing disadvantage and widen attainment gaps that the government rightly says it wishes to close. The system in which affordability varies by postcode is neither fair or defensible. That is why my First Amendment proposes a cap on the total cost of branded uniform items. Rather than limiting the number, the item based cap is insufficient. Single branded blazers can cost £50 or more and a Lord Gold PE kit even more. What matters to families, my Lords, is not how many items they are required, but how much they are forced to pay.

Clear. The clear financial cap is fairer, more transparent and more effective, while allowing schools the flexibility. My Second amendment addresses the continued application of VAT on compulsory school uniforms, particularly for those of a certain size. In effect, my Lords, this is a tax on clothing that children are legally required to wear to access education. The tax on learning zero rating school uniforms up to the age of 16 would provide immediate, targeted relief, particularly for families with multiple children and those on the lowest incomes.

These amendments do not undermine discipline standards or school identity. Uniforms can foster belonging and pride, but no child should feel ashamed or excluded because their parents cannot afford an overpriced item with a logo. If we are serious about supporting families, improving wellbeing and orientating gaps, I urge noble Lords to support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

these amendments. Clause 30, page 52. Leave out

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause 30, page 52. Leave out lines 33 to 40 and insert the words

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as printed. All the amendments around trying to make uniforms more affordable. But what I want to talk about is something that I believe is a health time bomb that we're sitting on, and that much in the way that we spoke about smoking some years ago, ultra processed food, the
16:50
Baroness Boycott Portrait Baroness Boycott (Crossbench)
-
-
whole question of PFAS in our systems and in everything that we eat and we touch, but in particular eat and we touch, but in particular in this this case in terms of school uniforms, because school school uniforms, because school uniforms that contain which are made from fabrics that contain PFAS, constantly contact your skin. And the results and the emerging evidence is now incontrovertible. evidence is now incontrovertible. And I'd also like to support the noble Lady, Lady Bennet's Amendment 119 A about the health generally of uniforms forever.

Chemicals, as they are commonly referred to, are a group of over 10,000 chemicals which exist over many, many products. We call them forever chemicals, partly because they are so widespread, and partly because so far they don't appear to break down. OK, they're relatively new. We don't know whether they're going to break down in 100 years, but right now they are not breaking our system is to get the test and do a drop of blood and find out what's in your body. Now serious evidence is emerging, and yesterday morning I signed an NDA with Netflix in order to watch their newest documentary on the question of Forever Chemicals.

And this was in particular around children and babies and fertility. But it obviously stretched into a wider, wider implications across all of us, but particularly our children, because they have grown up in the plastic era. And now there is evidence to say that this has come from Denmark. Prenatal exposure is associated with reduced IQ scores, and seven year old children, and in Germany, there's new research that's showing that PFAS significantly associated with reduced tetanus, rubella and diphtheria immunity.

So it's got effects all over the place. And you have to remember that these chemicals are being put into our systems, not just our food and what we touch and what we make things that are. There has been no FSA approval. There has been no FDA approval. It has just happened. And all these chemicals are made by oil companies. Plastic is a product of oil. Saudi Aramco is now the largest producer of plastic in the world and growing, as I speak specifically kids, though, who are thought to be particularly vulnerable and have been found to have higher concentration of PFAS in their blood than adults.

One route of exposure is through the skin, and this is why it brings me to the subject of school uniforms. There are often used in clothes to provide what they call extra qualities. So if you get stain resistance or easy iron, which of course is very tempting to someone on a time budget. These qualities, in fact, last for a very little time, and as you wash the clothes, they they disappear. And then those chemicals end up in your water courses. They are essentially non-essential and there is no cost implication whatsoever, apart from a gimmicky bit of advertising in using them.

I don't feel that the noble Lady, the Minister, really addressed this at Committee stage. She said, among other things, that quote, the UK product safety laws require all consumer products to be safe and manufacturers must ensure the safety of products before they are placed on the market. So if we turn this round, I wonder if she could update the House. If the government believes that the overwhelming body of evidence that is emerging that PFAS is causing detrimental health outcomes, is it incorrect, and that the approach of our close neighbours, France and most of Europe, to ban the use of over 10,000 substances? Is that in vain? At present, neither are product safety laws nor UK reach are preventing products being placed on the market that are harmful and not working to protect children nor adults.

At committee in the summer, the noble Lady, the Minister, said that there was work across government to help assess the levels of PFAS occurring in the environment, sources and potential risks, and to inform policy and regulatory approaches. That is quite a long time ago, so I'd like to know what work is being done. What are we just acknowledging a problem and not doing anything? I do appreciate that this is largely the responsibility of Defra, but it seems like our current approach is waiting for this disaster to happen.

And wouldn't it be more prudent to take steps to make schools and parents at least aware of this growing risk? An example of this is that in Jersey, which I appreciate is not part of the UK, but I happen to have been born there. There are people who are being treated with bloodletting, essentially leeching without leeches because firefighting foam got into the watercourses and drinking water and filled them with PFAS. And the state has taken some steps to reduce that. Even then, our response was glacial.

I was disappointed that the revised Environmental improvement plan, published before Christmas, said almost nothing about PFAS and that the government was, quote, investigating whether to restrict other PFAS in other firefighting foams. I don't understand why we even need to expend resources investigating what should be incredibly obvious. There was nothing about PFAS from other sources, and unironically, the following paragraph said that we were a leader on chemical management. Hard to believe if this is the only work that the government has done since committee.

I put it to the House that this is inadequate, but we do have a chance here to make some small progress. This amendment would ban the use of PFAS in school uniforms. Subsection two of the amendment sets the limit for residual PFAS and textiles to no more than 50mg. So this is not to allow producers to use the small amount of PFAS, because actually it's so prevalent in the water systems, in all our systems. You can't. And this was confirmed in watching the Netflix documentary last night.

It's actually impossible to ever get us back to zero. No one should find this fact alone really disturbing, and I hope it serves as an impetus. Our close neighbours in France and Denmark have banned the use of it in all clothes, not just kids clothes. And indeed, in France's case, it's much more widely and there is an expectation of an EU ban to come quite soon. Now, while my amendment has been drafted within the confines of this bill we are debating, I would urge the noble Lady, the Minister, to encourage her colleagues to match the EU's approach to following the OECD definition of over 1000 substances as PFAS and banning their use, rather than inventing our own definition of a new list.

I do accept that there is much that we don't know for certain about PFAS, but as I say, I watched this Netflix documentary last night and without a doubt now there is absolutely hard and fast evidence linking chemicals in our blood to declining birth rates, to falling sperm counts, and to all sorts of other very complex medical situations. So in the near term, can I ask for two things? First, can we change the statutory guidance that schools follow around considering sustainability and ethical supply chains, as well as engaging with parents and pupils when tendering for school uniform contracts? Could we be more specific be added to that guidance so that school uniform providers are invited to tender will provide details of whether their garments contained PFAS? We're not saying remove it, just put it on the label.

And could a recommendation that schools aim to source school uniforms without PFAS be possibly included? And if this is not possible, and they do go ahead and contract to supply his uniform items contain PFAS that those suppliers should be required to label items so that schools and parents can make an informed decision. It is not going to cost us more money. It's not just about saying everything has to be made of cotton, which is obviously better, but cotton itself gets given stain stain removal quantities and no arms, so that can also be bad.

But the thing with this is that you would put the responsibility fair and square on the producer. And secondly, I'd also ask that at the very least, she commit that the government will urgently consult on a wholesale ban of PFAS. If we don't, we risk becoming the dumping ground within Europe for all the school uniforms and other garments which the European Union is going to start rejecting and is starting to reject them now. And that would be a very bad place to be.
16:59
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
Madam. has very powerfully made the case for amendment 119. I just am going to add the noble Lady referred to the Netflix documentary. If you haven't yet seen, I'm going to go back a little further to a review article that came out in January last year, titled The Effect of Early Life PFAS Exposure on Child Neurodevelopment. A review of the evidence, and that was looking at 35 studies. Most of the studies were in the last five years, and low levels of exposure.

What this found is subtle but potentially very significant impacts. Population wide on neurodevelopment. What does that actually mean? It means reduced cognitive development and language development in infants and increased behavioural activity. Behavioural issues like hyperactivity in childhood. That's what some of the research is showing. And one of the really important things from that research is that we had concern about some of the very early PFAS chemicals, and then they brought in some new ones. It's the old whack a mole problem.

Oh, there's a problem with that one. We'll bring in something very similar. And actually, the evidence is increasingly emerging that there's problems with the newer chemicals as well. So this is surely being precautionary, acknowledging that something we are forcing pupils to use should not be harming them when they're exposed to all that cocktail of other chemicals pesticides, pharmaceuticals, plastics, which they're only getting through their lives, get more and more exposure to. Which brings me to my second amendment.

119A and I thank the noble Lady Baroness Boycott for expressing support for it. And this is where I have I have followed the rules. I put down amendments at Committee stage, which suggested we essentially get the plastics out of school uniforms. The government turned that down. I also put down amendments at Committee stage, saying our uniforms have to consider much more in the climate emergency, that they are appropriate for the conditions that pupils are now experiencing. What I've done with this amendment 119 is and I'm not going to push this to a vote, but I really hope the government will think of a seriously about going ahead with this without the statutory push.

A report to consider how healthy our school uniforms for our pupils. That means thinking about plastic exposure. It means PFAS, but also all of the other chemicals. You know, cotton may be great, but what pesticides are in those cotton materials? We don't know. These are things that we desperately need to look into. And I think also clause B in this thinks about the encouragement of movement and physical activity. And that ties with so many other things that we so often debate in your Lordships House about the need to tackle the obesity crisis and get people moving.

But you look at some of these school uniforms and think, that is not a garment that isn't going to encourage people to move. Now I'm just going to say to thing two further things here, one of which is I think it's really important to stress. And I also want to highlight this particular case because I think it's important it is highlighted. Parents. People assume that if something is on sale in the UK, it must be safe. Even more so, people assume, as the noble Lady said, that if it's the recommended school uniform, it must be safe.

But noble Lords may be aware of the case involving the retailer Hobbycraft, which at the weekend stopped selling a play sand after a member of the public, having seen reports from Australia and New Zealand that sand look like this, contained a abestos. A member of the public got the sand tested and found that it contained significant levels of asbestos. That member of public went to Hobbycraft and Hobbycraft said, oh well, there's not a government direction, but we'll stop selling it.

But we're not going to wish you a recall because there's no government direction of this. And what this case has exposed is that actually, after changes that happened after Brexit, under health and safety law, the government can't apply the precautionary principle and the government couldn't at that point have issued a recall because it would have had to done the test itself before it could do the recall. Now, I'm pleased to say that in in advance, and the Guardian is charting this.

If anyone wants to look at this. Hobbycraft has now issued a recall and will be informing everyone who has bought these products that they should stop using it and keep it out of the reach of children should place it in a heavy duty plastic bag. Should double tape and seal the plastic bag, store it safely and if it was being used with children, they should clear up the area with a wet cloth so as not to create dust. They should do that wearing gloves.

They should then double bag all of that material and that in the sealed bag. Really? Are we keeping children young people safe? Are we doing enough? Very clearly not. And when we're thinking about school uniforms, this will be one step that we could step forward. And just one other thing I want to address, because I think there's a lot of misinformation around at the moment. The issue around plastics and Pete Noble, Lords may have seen there was a report that questioned the validity of a very widely cited report about the fact that you may have a teaspoons worth of plastic in your in your brain.

Now, I want to quote a letter from the Guardian here, because I think it's really important to put this on the record. This is from Professor Philip J. Landrigan, who's the director of the Global Observatory on Planetary Health, which has been established under the sponsorship of The Lancet to globally get the best practice standards for examining microplastics. And what the what the professor says in the Guardian is well validated techniques show that there are multiple observations, including down microscopes in human tissues, which also identify the type of plastic whether microplastics came from.

Now, to quote the professor directly, we know a great deal about the chemicals in microplastics and how they harm health. These are Trojan horses that transport toxic plastic chemicals such as folates, bisphenols and brominated fire retardants from the environment into the human body. These chemicals leach out of the microplastic particles into the bloodstream and are distributed to tissues and cells and cause diseases from cancer to heart disease, from IQ loss in children to deceased. Decreased fertility.

So, my Lords, I come back to where I started. Surely the government should be looking as a start in keeping our children healthy at what is in and what the uniforms are made from, and I really hope the government will consider this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

seriously. My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Knowledge Schools Trust, a multi-academy trust which I co-founded and which trust which I co-founded and which now has nine schools in it. When I tabled this amendment during tabled this amendment during committee, there was some confusion as to whether the cap on the number as to whether the cap on the number of branded items of school uniform proposed in this bill applied to extracurricular activities were mandatory branded items for an activity that is not itself mandatory, such as being in a school sports team, outwith the cap, or included in it, even if they'd been lent or donated to the school free of charge.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie,
17:07
Lord Young of Acton Portrait Lord Young of Acton (Conservative)
-
-
believed they were outwith the cap, and therefore amendment 117, which and therefore amendment 117, which would exempt items loaned or gifted to a school, was unnecessary. Well, the Department for education has now published draft statutory guidance on how schools should interpret the uniform clauses in the bill, and made it clear that the bill, and made it clear that branded items that are mandatory for extracurricular activities, even if they're provided to children free of charge, are included in the cap.

I quote, all loaned or gifted branded items will be captured within the limit if they are required to be worn. It goes on to say schools can continue to lend, give out or make available for sale additional branded items as long as wearing those items is optional. It could not be clearer if a school insists that children playing for a school team are required to wear a branded item so their fellow team members can distinguish them from members of the opposing team, for instance, then those items are included in the cap, which I would remind my Lords, is three items for primary schools and four for secondaries, including a school tie, and that includes items loaned or gifted to the school.

At this point, I should acknowledge that the government has allowed some exceptions to this rule. When I spoke at the Committee stage, I pointed out that the cap would make it impossible for schools to maintain a combined cadet force, even though the uniform for those troops is provided free of charge by the Ministry of Defence. In the draft DfE guidance, it says, quote, the uniform items for scouts or cadet forces are not captured by the limit. I'm grateful to the noble Lady, the Minister, for that concession, but why not extend the exemption to all items lent or gifted to a school, given that they won't cost parents or carers anything? I can understand why the government wants to reduce the financial burden on parents and carers by limiting the number of items of school uniform they're required to buy, although in truth, I think schools can be trusted to manage that themselves and do manage it themselves with all you do regard for the needs of low do regard for the needs of low income families, but it.

For some reason, the government believes that this is an area in which state intervention is required. But what possible reason does the government have for including items that are loaned or donated in the cap? The only explanation I can think of is that it's a residue of the hostility to school uniforms that used to be fashionable amongst the left wing intelligentsia in the 1960s and 70s. I thought this hostility was now a thing of the past, and the argument for school uniforms had been comprehensively won.

And in case the noble Lady, the Minister, is unfamiliar with this argument, I would refer her to the current DfE guidance. That guidance, published on her department's website, eloquently makes the case for school uniforms. I quote, we strongly encourage schools to have a uniform, as it can play a key role in promoting the ethos of a school, providing a sense of belonging and identity, setting an appropriate tone for education. Quote by creating a common identity among all pupils, regardless of background, a uniform can act as a social leveller and reduce bullying and peer pressure to wear the latest fashions or other expensive clothes.

My Lords, all those arguments apply as much to branded items for team sports and other extracurricular activities as they do to branded items of school uniform, and I hope the noble Lady, the Minister, will recognise the wisdom of her own department on this matter. And if she doesn't trust schools to manage these issues fairly themselves, at least remove lent and gifted items from the cap.
17:12
17:13
Baroness Spielman Portrait Baroness Spielman (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'm also speaking to amendment 117 in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Acton, noble friend Lord Young of Acton, to which I've added my name. And although it may seem a small point, it matters. The draft guidance is perfectly illustrates the consequences of poor policy making. The cart was put before the horse, and an announcement was made about reducing the number of branded items, but without the clarity about the policy goal that should have informed the drafting of the legislation.

I will not repeat the examples made by others, but it is unfortunate that the draft guidance is so unequivocal. It is the kind of Kafkaesque rule that brings officialdom into ill repute, and it probably won't save parents a single penny. So I would add that if the policy goal is narrowly to save all parents money on school uniforms, it could be better achieved through amendment 114, which would give schools more flexibility and avoid the problem that amendment 1117 is intended to address.

I believe that an automatic inflation adjustment should be incorporated to avoid the messiness of an annual review. So finally, I'd like to ask the noble Lord, the Minister, whether, if. Ladies, I beg your pardon, whether if this limit is enacted, she'll ensure that two particular impacts are fully evaluated. First, what's the social impact on children in demonising branded clothing? The government's lost sight of part of the value of uniforms. Uniforms aren't just about badging and encouraging identification with an institution.

They're also about having all children wear clothing that is genuinely identical in quality and cut, not just broadly similar in appearance. We all know how sensitive the young are to status markers, such as having the right, usually expensive trainers, even when the differences are all but invisible to the adult I. Fewer school branded items may mean more pressure on children to have the higher status version of the unbranded items, which will inevitably bear hardest on the poorest children. So this should be evaluated and linked to this point.

The evaluation should consider not just whether parents spend less money on school uniforms, but also whether they spend less money on children's clothing. Overall, if the change reduces spend on branded items but leads to poorer families being pressured into spending more overall on children's clothes, not less, it should in fact be counted as a failure, so I hope the noble Lady can reassure me on those points.
17:15
17:17
17:18
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yeah. in support of amendment 114. Throughout my teaching career, I've Throughout my teaching career, I've taught in the most deprived communities on Merseyside, and I always observed that the parents with the least were the ones who took the greatest pride in how their children were retired, and I paid huge tribute to them. I understand where the government are coming from on this. Uniforms do cost a lot, but I just I think as I said at Committee stage, I don't think this is the way to do it.

There's so many bands, ifs and buts. So for example, a uniform which consists of a kilt, of a braided blazer, of a jumper with the school colours in can cost a fortune compared to five items which are compared to five items which are simply branded. And. I just think that probably I mean, we're in a sort of situation which quite difficult to know how to move forward, but probably the old way of doing it was, was was the better way where you could not, you know, obtain a uniform grant.

And many local authorities still do that. I mean, we all share the same goal of making school uniforms affordable for every family, but good intentions without practical wisdom can lead us precisely where we do not wish to go. I fear that if we face that, I fear that if we face, if we're faced with a three item cap, this could happen. Let me speak plainly about what happens when policy meets the playground. The Schoolwear Association tells us that 85% of retailers believe schools will drop branded PE kits entirely to avoid breaching the cap.

When that happens, families do not suddenly pay less, they pay more. They turn to Nike or Adidas, the commercial brands that cost nearly double what specialist school suppliers charge an £11 school p p top becomes a £20 branded alternative, and it gets worse. Schools in the West Midlands are already dropping particular sports from the curriculum, because the new guidance prevents them from having school specific sport kits for those activities. And one school that was was mentioned in the media, I think it was the times last week, have adopted the school kit, casual sportswear, casual sportswear.

And as I say, that is not really a school uniform, but it's very, very expensive to wear. And no doubt the branded sports kit as a school uniform, albeit three items, can be far more expensive than a five item school uniform. We risk pricing children out of sport entirely, not through expensive uniforms, but through their absence. The child, whose parents cannot afford the expensive commercial kit, would become the one left on the sidelines. The very children we seek to protect become more visible in their disadvantage, not less.

We have learned, sometimes painfully, that good legislation must be workable legislation. The Lords Amendment Lord Mohammed offers us a different approach, one that focuses on actual cost rather than arbitrary numbers. It gives schools clarity about what they can require families to spend, while allowing them the opportunity to be in branded clothing. My Lords, I also want to speak in favour of Baroness Boycott amendment, which I think is very important. My only observation is that many clothing items, of course, come from China, and I think it would be difficult to get the Chinese government to stop child labour, never mind the chemicals they put into items, but I think it's an issue that we should certainly, as a society, look towards.
17:23
Earl of Effingham Portrait The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
-
-
The. My Lords, we have listened with interest to the valuable with interest to the valuable contributions during this debate, and we thank all noble Lords who have both spoken to and tabled amendments in this group. Amendment 114 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed seeks to fulfil the government's commitment to lowering the cost of school uniforms but by a monetary cap rather than a limit on branded items. The principle of focusing on the actual cost to families, rather than on the number of branded items underlines His Majesty's Loyal opposition.

Support for both this amendment and for the amendment 117 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Ashton. Both these amendments seek to address the real issue at the centre of the government's concern, namely bringing down the cost of school uniforms. It surely makes sense that items provided or loaned free of charge to a pupil should be excluded from the restriction on branded items, on the basis that this imposes no financial burden on families and indeed gives schools greater flexibility, whilst acknowledging that they do already try to help pupils where possible.

I now turn to amendment 118 from the noble Lord Lord Mohammed, which seeks to extend the VAT zero rating for certain items of school uniform for pupils up to the age of 16. As was noted in committee. Children's clothing and footwear designed for children under 14 years of age already attracts a zero rate of VAT if they meet specific conditions. We would therefore be grateful to hear from the Minister how the government intends to address the issue of raising the VAT threshold to 16 from 14, which will address noble Lords concerns.

Amendment 119 in the name of my noble kinswoman, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott seeks to prohibit school uniform items which contain PFAS chemicals. Amendment 119 brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, similarly requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the health implications of school uniforms, whilst existing guidance asks schools to consider sustainability and ethical supply chains. The noble Baroness Lady Boycott is entirely correct. We must also consider health concerns and we look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, the Minister, regarding what work the government will commit to when undertaking these many important issues.
17:26
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Minister for Women and Equalities) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. >> It. >> Seems appropriate to follow the debate on child poverty with a debate about, once again, the actual action that this government is taking to cut the cost for families, in this case, our commitment to cutting the cost of school uniforms for families by limiting the number of branded items that schools can require pupils to have. This will give parents flexibility to buy more items from a range of retailers, including high street retailers, and make spending decisions that suit their circumstances.

Turning to the specifics of the amendments, amendment 117, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, would exclude from the limits on branded uniform items those which have been lent or provided free of charge to pupils. It would allow schools to require pupils to wear more than three branded items of uniform or more than four, whereas secondary school includes a branded tie, provided that parents do not have to pay for them. I do appreciate the issues and the concerns underpinning this amendment, particularly the need to preserve schools ability to lend or to give branded uniform or to accept loans of or gifts of sports equipment.

But it isn't necessary. Following my letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Baron on this matter, I wrote to peers highlighting the recent draft statutory guidance, confirming that optional items are excluded from the limit. Schools may still sell, loan or provide additional branded items provided that wearing them is optional. For example, schools will still be able to loan or provide a specific kit for inter-school sports competitions, as many already do. However, schools should not require pupils to wear branded items for activities unless they count towards the limit.

If a pupil can't or doesn't wish to wear a loan branded item, schools should allow a suitable alternative, such as a plain sport shirt in a similar colour or another branded item already part of their PE kit or uniform. I think it would be. Speaking as the former goalkeeper of the Dyson Perrins CV Academy hockey team and goal attack of the netball team, I don't think it would have been that difficult for me to be perfectly able to tell my team, even if 1 or 2 of them was wearing a school coloured plain shirt, rather than the PE kit that has been loaned to them, so I'm not sure it's the disastrous impact that noble Lords here are suggesting.

But what is disastrous is where the cost of uniform becomes a barrier to participation at school, including in extracurricular activities. The limit also, as the noble Lord has said, only applies to items required by schools, not external bodies. And our guidance clarifies that Scout and Cadet Force uniforms are not captured. As I explained during committee, we want clarity. For parents, this amendment risks confusion about whether a compulsory branded item counts towards the statutory limit, depending on how it was obtained.

There is also a risk that if schools become overly reliant on loaning out key elements of uniform, parents may fear being charged for expensive replacements if these items are lost or damaged. And finally, incentivising schools to adopt uniform policies that depend on their ability to freely provide compulsory branded items. Risks actually increasing visible inequalities between schools and between pupils. The noble Baroness, Lady Spielman and the noble Lord Lord story. Are concerned and raised the issue of whether or not this measure might actually result in more pupils wearing designer items to school.

But of course, the way in which the government has set out the policy gives schools the choice to require compulsory branded items according to their individual circumstances. They will want to think carefully about which items they require to be branded and why, and how they ensure pupils are not under pressure to wear expensive designer clothing where branded items are removed, particularly for PE. But many schools already set requirements for non-branded items to avoid this, including that students should wear clothing without noticeable designer logos.

So I think this is not only something that schools already face, but something that they are well equipped to ensure does not happen for their children. Turning to the amendments 114 and 118, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, amendment 114 seeks a monetary cap rather than a numeric cap on branded uniform. I appreciate the noble Lords concern with a numeric limit that schools might still ask parents to purchase expensive branded items. I can reassure noble Lords that statutory guidance published last autumn, already requires schools to consider how to keep the cost of branded items low, and to demonstrate how they've secured best value for parents.

And we're happy to look at making this message even clearer in the guidance. And as I explained at committee, we believe clarity and choice for parents are best achieved through a numeric cap. A cost cap risks creating a financial target for schools. It could increase the number of branded items some schools require, whereas a numeric limit will mean a reduction in the number of branded items for over a third of primary schools and around 70% of secondary schools.

I suspect that's why recent Children's Society research shows that 78% of parents agree with a numeric limit. A cost cap would also force annual reviews by schools of uniform policies and associated prices, potentially leading to more frequent uniform changes and higher overall costs. More frequent changes could also reduce access to second hand uniform, and further complicates long lead in times for schools and suppliers in procuring uniform and their ability to secure value for money through multiple year contracts.

Lastly, having to meet a fixed price could also increase schools reliance on specific suppliers, actually reducing parental choice. A competitive market benefits families through lower prices, better quality innovation, and greater choice. Amendment 118 seeks to remove VAT on school uniform for pupils up to the age of 16. Our recently published Child Poverty Strategy more directly addresses the root causes of poverty by cutting the costs of essentials, boosting family incomes and improving local services. As we've already discussed, this includes removing the two child limit on Universal Credit, the limit on compulsory branded uniform items forms part of our mission to tackle child poverty, and school uniform, of course, is already zero rated for children under 14 years.

Going further would come at considerable cost to the Exchequer. Turning to amendment 119, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, which seeks to ban PFAS in school uniforms. At committee, I did outline cross-government work assessing levels of PFAS in the environment, their sources and potential risks, including those used in textiles to inform policy and regulation. I can now go further to advise that the Department for the environment, Food and Rural Affairs will shortly publish a PFAS plan setting out a range of interventions, measures and initiatives to raise understanding and awareness of PFAS in the environment.

Identify and address releases of harmful PFAS, and protect people and the environment from harm relating to PFAS. This coordinated response involving government and industry will be a platform to engage further with industry, other bodies and the public on PFAS to develop collective actions and initiatives to address this shared challenge on school uniforms. Specifically, we will commit to updating procurement guidance to recommend that schools consider sourcing PFAS free uniform, which many retailers already offer. Our measures. Our measure already gives parents more choice and greater flexibility when buying uniform, affording them more opportunity to choose PFAS free items.

Turning to amendment 119A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, this seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to assess and report on the health implications of current uniform provision and rules. This amendment, we believe, is unnecessary. I've just outlined our work to address the challenge of PFAS. In addition, as I set out during committee, existing statutory UK product safety laws require all consumer products to be safe and manufacturers must ensure the safety of products before they are placed on the market.

We have robust systems in place to identify the impact of chemicals under the UK regulation, evaluation, Authorisation and Restrictions of Chemicals UK reach and to regulate them effectively. Lastly, guidance on uniform updated since committee now states that schools should consider how comfortable their proposed uniform will be for pupils, it includes specific reference to active uniforms, which allow pupils to move freely and promote physical activity throughout the day. It also says they should take a sensible approach to allow for exceptions or adaptations to be made during extreme or adverse weather, particularly where the UK Health Security Agency has issued weather health alerts.

My Lords, this government supports, despite the misgivings of the noble Lord, Lord Young strongly supports the benefits of school uniform, but believes that we need practical ways to ensure that that costs less for parents and puts less pressure on families. For that reason, and with the assurances that I have given, I hope that noble Lords feel able to withdraw their amendments.
17:37
17:38
17:49
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Minister for Women and Equalities) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, before I turn to the >> My Lords, before I turn to the groups concerning home education, I do want to just thank noble Lords for the thoughtful contributions for the thoughtful contributions made during committee and those who have engaged since then in detailed discussions with my department. And I want to reiterate that most families who choose to home educate do so with their child's best interests at heart. They do not present safeguarding concerns, and it is not the government's intention to place unnecessary burdens on them.

However, we must face the reality that some children are in safe or unsuitable education and unlike children in school, they can lack regular contact with adults who can safeguard and support them. These measures seek to strike the right balance between recognising parents right to home educate, while ensuring that vulnerable children do not slip through the cracks. And of course, they follow repeated attempts by the previous government and others to legislate for children not in school registers as well.

And of course, recently new evidence has come to light that further underlines the need for appropriate information sharing. Earlier identification of children's needs and stronger safeguards for home educated children. The Local Child Safeguarding Practice review into the tragic death of Sara Sharif, the NSPCC, Tipping Point Report and Ofsted and Cqc's thematic review into Children Not in School all underline the need for more touchpoints for children who are currently being home educated or children in school that may become home educated in the future.

In reflecting on the findings of the Sara Sharif review, it is important to be clear that while home education was relevant to Sarah's visibility to agencies, her death was caused by the actions of her father, not by her being home educated. The review identified serious system level failures across multiple agencies, and that is why this bill contains a broader set of reforms to strengthen multi-agency practice, improve information sharing, and enhance professional oversight and decision making across children's social care.

The children not in school provisions and the amendments we are tabling in response to the review serve a distinct and more targeted purpose. They are designed to provide proportionate safeguards at the specific points where children can become less visible to professionals without replicating or expanding the child protection system. These measures will help ensure that children who may benefit from early help or additional support are not overlooked, while maintaining protections for family privacy and parental choice. Our government amendments improve safeguards for vulnerable children.

Cut red tape in relation to children not in school registers, and strengthen the support offer for home educating parents and statutory guidance will provide greater reassurance on data protection and explain the roots of complaint and appeal for parents. So, turning to these government amendments in Group three, I beg to move government Amendment 120, which would extend the consent requirement to parents of children who have been on child protection plans in the last five years. It is important to remember that child protection plans are not entered into lightly.

They are reserved for those children that are suffering or at risk of significant harm, and for whom urgent, coordinated action is needed to keep them safe. Children do come off child protection plans, however, with the right support, family circumstances can stabilise, risks can reduce, and families can make meaningful, sustained change. And I commend those parents who work constructively with support from social care services. Their commitment is often what makes it possible for child protection plans to be discharged.

But many families that come off child protection plans need ongoing support to sustain progress. Removing a child from school for home education could be destabilising and make them vulnerable to harm again. That is why we have tabled this amendment to provide an additional check for children who have recently come off plans, checking that their progress can be sustained if they move into home education. Turning to government amendments 165169 and 172, which would allow local authorities to require school attendance where it is in a child's best interests.

For children who have been on a child protection plan in the last five years, school is not only a place where child, where a child can receive a suitable full time education, but for some children it is also a protective space somewhere they are guaranteed access to pastoral support and adults outside of the home. For children who are experiencing or at risk of significant harm, it can be in their best interest to attend school. For this reason, given the potential for children who have recently been discharged from plans to become vulnerable to harm again without continuing support and engagement, it is right that we extend the power for local authorities to require these children to attend school via the school attendance order process, if it would be in the child's best interest to do so.

But crucially, my amendment 172 ensures that any school attendance order made on these grounds must be revoked once the five year period has passed, provided there is no current child protection plan or section 47 inquiry. Turning to government amendments one, two five and 126. These amendments would provide for a pilot scheme in selected areas under which local authorities must meet, with parents wishing to withdraw their child from school for home education. Any decision to introduce these meetings nationally following the pilot would be subject to affirmative regulations and a consultation.

The review into the death of Sara Sharif recommended a meeting take place before children for whom there are concerns about are removed from school as a way of preventing children who are being harmed from slipping under the radar. The amendments that we are proposing also look to address the separate concerns that have been raised in both houses about families who are driven to home education because they feel their child's needs are not being met in school. No parent should find themselves in that position.

If parents choose to home educate, it should be an informed decision made with a clear understanding of the alternatives, the commitments involved and the support available from their local authority. These meetings are intended to help parents in their decision making process, as well as to identify children who may need support in pilot areas before their child's name is removed from the school roll. Parents wishing to home educate their child would be required to attend a meeting with the local authority. The meeting would cover their reasons for wishing to home, educate the responsibilities of local authorities and parents in relation to home education, how the parent plans to secure a suitable full time education for their child.

Safeguarding and welfare any support needs the child may have and how these could be met, and anything else relevant to the parents decision to withdraw the child for home education. Children will be required to attend the meeting with their parents unless exceptional circumstances apply, because it is important that children have opportunities to express their views, and this meeting would provide one such opportunity. Statutory guidance would set out circumstances in which attendance may not be appropriate. Unless a parent requires permission from the local authority to home educate their child, such as when their child is on a child protection plan and that permission is declined, then the child's name must be deleted from the school roll.

After the meeting has concluded, the child will then be added to the local authority's children not in school register, and the authority will record the outcome of the meeting. If the local authority has concerns based on the meeting, these should be followed up. We expect many parents would welcome these meetings as a constructive starting point with their local authority, but recognise that some may feel anxious about this requirement. That is why this amendment requires a pilot scheme and not an immediate national rollout.

We want to be confident that these meetings will deliver clear benefits for children and families. To provide further reassurance, the amendment would place clear limits on the pilot. It must be introduced within two years of the section containing the pilot and consent measure coming into force. It must run for only 2 to 5 years, and it may involve no more than 30% of local authorities in England or Wales. Further details on the pilot would be set out in regulations, subject to the affirmative procedure and in statutory guidance, which would be informed by a consultation.

Turning to Government Amendment 131, which would require local authorities to assess the child's home environment within 15 days of them becoming registered on their children not in school. Register, and to consider the other settings where the child is being educated, of which the local authority is aware. Within 15 days of recording this information on their registers. As part of this new requirement, local authorities will be empowered to visit the child in their home. This response directly to a recommendation from the review into the death of Sara Sharif, which made clear the importance of setting a clear expectation that local authorities consider the suitability of a child's home environment as soon as possible after withdrawal from school.

The most straightforward way for a local authority to meet this requirement is to visit the family in their home at the point of registration. For many families, a visit from their elective home education officer is already a routine part of an annual check in, as local authorities will be required to consider the child's home and empowered to request a home visit. We have also tabled amendment 134, which requires registers to hold information about any address a registered child lives at in addition to their primary home.

This amendment is intended to address circumstances where a child has more than one residence, for example, where they reside with each separated parent government. Amendment 145, which would allow the outcomes of any home visits or considerations of the child's home and education settings to be prescribed for inclusion in children, not in school registers. If local authorities are being required to actively consider these environments, it is important that the conclusions that they have drawn are recorded. This would ensure an audit trail of any concerns and the steps taken in response to amendment 133 in my name, which would ensure that the Register also contains the previous address of the child if they have lived at their current address for less than 12 months, this would.

This amendment would support local authorities to request information from a child's previous local authority when the child was in that authority's children, not in school register or living in that local authority's area. This would have a particularly positive impact for children that move frequently across borders, as it would help ensure local authorities remain informed of the child support needs, educational circumstances and history, including any safeguarding concerns. Turning to Government Amendment 167, which would require local authorities to consider the home and other education settings it is aware of when deciding whether a preliminary notice to a school attendance order should be served, local authorities will be empowered to request to visit the child in their home as part of this, I appreciate that some of this may be starting to sound familiar, but we are intentionally replicating this requirement and the power to request a home visit throughout the registration and school attendance order processes.

Turning to Government Amendment 175, which would ensure that local authorities must have regard to statutory guidance when exercising their functions relating to the Home Education Consent requirement. Pilot scheme for mandatory meetings, children not in school registration and school attendance orders. This would allow a single coherent statutory guidance document to be developed and consulted on showing how the new duties fit together, and supporting consistent practice across local authorities. It would also give parents clearer, more accessible information about how the system works as a whole.

I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

therefore beg to move amendment 120. Member proposed clause 31, page 55, line two at end, insert the 55, line two at end, insert the words printed on the Marshalled List as an amendment to amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

List as an amendment to amendment 120, amendment 128 Lord Crisp. My Lords. Firstly, may I say how very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Firstly, may I say how very grateful I am to the noble Lady that the government has moved on some of the concerns raised by myself and others, particularly
18:02
Lord Crisp Portrait Lord Crisp (Crossbench)
-
-
myself and others, particularly about some of the detail required on the register. However, I do of course want to press her to move further. There's a lot of new and very significant amendments that have just arrived, and I want to make two general points relating to these amendments and then comment on several of them. The first one is that I really believe that the government needs to revisit its whole policy on home education. We're debating here a very significant set of amendments very late in the day, which are creating a new regime.

But I don't think the full implications have been thought through. And let me give you just one single example. And there are others which is relevant to this group, but also to other areas. And that is that as most many noble Lords will know, most local authorities, I believe it's most, rather than just many, hold annual meetings or annual or request annual reports from home educating parents in their area. These are done regularly. They're done actually on the basis of case law, which says that local authorities are entitled to ask for an annual meeting or indeed an annual report, and they involve quite a lot of work in doing that.

I don't understand why these have been ignored, and that these additional requirements are meetings and information. Requirements and monitoring aren't built around them. It seems to me there's an inconsistency here in developing the policy, and I would be grateful if the Minister would explain with this one on one of the groupings to do with the the information activities on the register, why the government has chosen to ignore this annual reporting system which exists in so many places. Presumably it was an explicit decision to do so.

And can I also ask her to confirm that parents still have to comply with requests for annual reports or meetings? Or can they just now say, look at the register? Home education has changed enormously in the last few years, and policy certainly needs to reflect this, but it needs to be based on a really detailed examination. I think, of what is going on here, and most importantly, we haven't spent time in committee on it really is. We need to understand in some detail the causes of the lasting of the of the big increase in the last few years, driven by parents who believe that their schools are failing their children, many of whom have special needs and require special hope.

These are big questions. And I think it's really important that in taking this beyond this bill, the government will look at this wider policy. After all these these parents are taking on emotionally and financially demanding responsibilities themselves. And why do so few headteachers use their powers of flexibility to accommodate children in the way that their parents would want them to? And I think some of those issues are about mental health and other things that we've touched on in the in this report, in this meeting.

But they're also about how schools are governed and the requirements that are being placed increasingly on schools. Another question, of course, that needs to be considered is how many parents are trying to home educate for all the wrong reasons? What proportion do we think this is? I know from listening to education officers it's quite small, but of course it demands attention. Let me be clear. I understand absolutely the concerns about safeguarding and educational standards. They're real just as they're real in schools.

And there needs to be dealt with proportionately in terms of safeguarding. Peers who like data, may want to know that only figures I can find are that home education children add up to about 1.4% of the population of school children, and they account for 1.2% of serious case reviews, as noble Lords will know, those reviews where children are seriously harmed or die. These. These figures suggest that home educated children are no more at risk than children at school. Conceivably, even you could argue less.

My point here is that home education should only be seen as a risk factor for those with a record of abuse, or where there is an existing concern, but not for the generality of parents. Yet the approach we see in this bill suggests that all home educating parents are being viewed with suspicion. That's certainly what they feel. Looking ahead, once proportionate checks are done at the beginning of a relationship between parents and authority, I believe the approach should be what the noble aid of the Minister said.

One of partnership between authorities and parents. It's strange it isn't, given that in other policy areas, government is considering more partnership with parents. And in health, for example, it is now becoming accepted that parents know their child better than any professional can. As a noble Lady, the Minister knows I'm working with a group of home educating parents together with the Home Education officer and my noble friend Lord Hampton, to look at alternative policy ideas for the future. And I'm very grateful to her for facilitating access for discussions with her officials about this.

Let me then turn to specific amendments. Government amendment 120, which gives authorities the power to withhold permission to educate or to make decision on whether or not to educate from parents of children who have been the subject of action under section 47 in the last five years. I things that have to do with safeguarding issues. To that extent, it seems to me it is proportionate in line what I've just said about risk factors. However, I have one significant concern many adopted children will end up being caught by this because they may have.

Because those children may have been the subject of such proceedings earlier in life before adoption. Do we really think that parents who've been through the adoption process and noble Lords, will know this is a 1 or 2 year, really rigorous process? Do we really think that we should be, that local authorities should be second guessing them about the best education for the child that they have just been entrusted with? Are they really a source of risk? And I would be enormously grateful if the noble Lady would exempt them.

My amendment 128 makes that specific point. However, amendment one to A from Baroness Barran, however, seeks to change this five year period into a lifetime requirement and include proceedings under section 31 where children have been taken into care, and section 17, where children have ever been in need. I believe this is disproportionate in their impact that this will draw many people into this group. Do we really want to treat disabled children differently simply because their parents have asked voluntarily for some help, or were in care before adoption? Or as I know, of cases where children were taken in care at the request of the wife during proceedings against an abusive husband.

Baroness Barran amendment 121B is potentially extremely dangerous for that last group of parents. For parents who are seeking to avoid abusive ex-partners as it will reveal their location and possibly their address. I cannot make this point strongly enough. I know women who are in this situation. This is the amendment that says that all parents should be consulted. The noble Lady, the Minister will also know that where such partners discover the authority or address, they may well bring allegations against their ex-partner under section 47, causing as much damage as possible.

And I note in this context that deregistering, a child from a school, only requires one signature and not the signature of all the parents involved. This seems to me inconsistent, however, Baroness Barran amendment one two, three seems eminently sensible that local authorities should have to spell out reasons for refusing permission to deregister children in special schools. My amendments one, two two and 124 serve similar purposes. They're about holding authorities to account for their decisions. The wording of one, two, two relates to local authorities judging that staying at a school is in the child's best interests.

There needs to be some appropriate mechanism for confirming or challenging this, and I propose that it should be confirmed by a court. My amendment one two, four addresses cases where parents appeal against an authority's decision by asking the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers to issue guidance on how they will judge an appeal. This seems to me a very straightforward ask. We need to. People will need to know how their appeal will be judged. I hope the Minister agrees. The more transparency here, the better.

I agree with the noble Lady, the Minister that government 125 government amendment 125 about meetings at the point of deregistration seems to me very generally sensible and worth taking forward as a pilot. I believe they should also be treated as exit interviews, asking why the relationship between the school and the child has broken down. If that is the case, it may not be the case and making this information available to the Education Committee and Ofsted. Schools and authorities need to use this information to improve their services.

And this is the purpose of my amendment 125, which I believe from my correspondence the noble Lady agrees with. Let me then turn to Government amendment 131 and amendment 131A about requesting meetings in the child's home. This is indeed the most controversial area, and I suspect other peers have had more correspondence about this than anything else, raising a whole range of issues about about access to people's homes. I note this is not mandatory, although there are implicit penalties for not complying.

What relationship are they trying to establish? This is problematic legally, but I'm not going to dwell on that. My earlier comments on Baroness Barran amendment 1 to 1 may apply here. And do the parents of adopted children have to apply? I would make two further points. Firstly, I'm not clear what this inspection is about. What criteria are being used? The home as such is not a proxy for the standard of education. Surely your Lordships need to know the criteria that are involved.

The only criterion I can possibly think of is that the child has some quiet space at home or elsewhere to study. Although this raises questions about travelling travellers. And finally, even more importantly, why should the child be subject to two meetings in 15 days? I think this is a real issue, including one that invades what is, for many of them, their space safe, safe space. This is very problematic for many children. We need only think of adopted children, many of whom are terrified by any officials, and live in a constant fear of being rejected or taken away.

Again, this is an amendment which requires more debate and more answers, and I certainly would be would feel that it is important that the child should be at one or other of the two meetings that are proposed in the first 15 days, but two meetings with officials in 15 days seems to me excessive.
18:13
Baroness Spielman Portrait Baroness Spielman (Conservative)
-
-
Briefly. >> My Lords. Sorry. >> My Lords, I'm speaking to amendment 121 A relating to local authority consent for the authority consent for the withdrawal of certain children from school and also to amendment 131, empowering local authorities to empowering local authorities to make home visits to children who've ever been subject to a care order or been on a child protection plan. Both amendments have been proposed by my noble friend Baroness Barran, and are supported by other noble Lords on other benches.

Broadly, I have welcomed the provisions in this bill, strengthening protections for children not in school or removed from schools, and I am grateful to the government for the amendments it's tabled since Committee stage. But nevertheless, I do not believe this is enough. We need to recognise more clearly that in some circumstances, the declared intention to home educate can in itself be a signal that some risk or harm has resurfaced. No safeguarding system can ever be entirely comprehensive and infallible, and indeed safeguarding work should always be proportionate.

But nevertheless, schools are an important part of that system, especially for children at higher risk. And social work always involves a difficult balance. The care order is a drastic intervention. Maintaining a child protection plan is expensive and also intrusive into family life. We don't keep children in care or on protection plans by default, and it's normal for the level of intervention to be adjusted in line with circumstances. So while a child is of school age, schools do provide an important continuing residual line of sight to the child and are responsible for alerting local authorities if they believe that a child's circumstances have deteriorated.

And of course, once a child is out of school, he or she may be more exposed to the harms that previously necessitated a plan. So if a child who has had serious, known and known difficulties in their family life, even a good many years ago, is to be withdrawn from school, it is right for local authorities to have the opportunity to review the child's case, to determine whether that level of oversight can be safely dispensed with, and indeed, whether the family is equipped to provide an adequate education to the child.

Similarly, a child who is currently classified as in need is by definition exposed to some known risks or harms in their life outside school or requires some substantial support. And sadly, some schools have told me that some family that families sometimes withdraw their children for home education simply because the parents have been threatened with prosecution for non-attendance, only to have them return months later, having had no meaningful education in between. So removing children from school can sometimes escalate risk and reduce the opportunities to recognise actual harm.

It is therefore fair and appropriate for the local authority to have the opportunity to refuse that withdrawal. And in the same vein, it is reasonable and proportionate to require local authorities to make a home visit to families. Proposing to home, educate children who've ever been in care or had a child protection plan, or are currently categorised as children in need. This is not an unfair imposition on those parents, but a sensible, pragmatic step. I would add that in relation to both amendments, I recognise the value of Lord Crisp caveat about adoption.

And finally, I will express my hope not only that the government takes up these amendments, but also that it commissions an analysis of the findings from these home visits, which could provide useful insights that help both local authorities and central government make good use of the children not in school register and also help shape government home education policy in future.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Happy to. Add my name. To Baroness Barran amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To Baroness Barran amendments. for. A very simple reason. I'm very grateful to officials from the grateful to officials from the Department for education who had a meeting with us to discuss these amendments and the reasoning behind amendments and the reasoning behind them. And the reasoning behind them is really simple. The Sara Sharif incident happened despite multiple
18:17
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
reviews looking into not dissimilar cases in some cases over previous decades. And yet it was still decades. And yet it was still possible to happen. And in this case, I do feel that a an almost an case, I do feel that a an almost an extreme preventive approach is required to make sure we don't have required to make sure we don't have a repetition. The point was made by the officials that there have been significant improvements in the significant improvements in the quality of children's services in most of the country, about two thirds are now in a reasonable shape.

But, my Lords, that begs the question, what about the other third? If there is going to be another case, God forbid, like Sara Sharif and, you know, history and I'm a historian by background teaches you it probably will happen. You know, the the opprobrium that will be heaped upon whichever unfortunate Ministers and officials happen to be happen to be in office at the time that happens will be considerable and in our view, are avoidable if we mitigate against that risk by actually assuming that we have to legislate for the one third of children's services that are not in good shape, because that is almost certainly where the accidents will happen and they will happen.

And one of the key findings of the Sara Sharif review is that there have been systemic weaknesses again and again and again, despite all of these enquiries and all of the well-intentioned actions that follow them. And really, this is important enough that we feel we really have to prepare and assume that the worst might happen and do everything in our power to prevent it.
18:19
18:21
Baroness Tyler of Enfield Portrait Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I rise briefly because I've also added my name to amendment 121A in the name of the noble Lady Baroness the name of the noble Lady Baroness Barran. I do think this is a very important set of amendments that we have before us. I welcome the fact that many of the amendments in this group are about strengthening, safeguarding. I think that's really important. I did listen very carefully to the noble Lord Lord Crisp, because he had, as ever, some very important points to make.

I don't agree with everything he said, but I do I do agree with him that the time is ripe to have a broader debate about a wider set of issues around the whole issue of home education, which go outside the scope of this bill, and I hope that it will be possible to do that. I also agreed with him about the need for action being taken, safeguarding action to be proportionate. But it is my personal view that the that the the targeting of action as, as it is in, in amendment one, two, one a, so that local authorities must consent to the withdrawal of a child from school if they are involved in either child protection plans or a child in need, as classified under section 17 of that act.

I feel that that is proportionate in terms of trying to provide additional support for vulnerable children and making sure that they do not fall through the cracks. just heard too many times over the of children who have fallen through the cracks. The most recent one, of course, was the very harrowing and terrible case of Sara Sharif, and it was because of the lack of visibility and what I think that this amendment does and why I added my name to it.

What is to ensure that there is greater visibility given to these children? So that's mine. I know people have different views on this, but that's my reason for believing that this is a proportionate amendment.
18:23
Lord Meston Portrait Lord Meston (Crossbench)
-
-
I would. 31. 31. >> Of the bill. >> And the government amendment 120,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the government amendment 120, and also support amendment 121 A, which would extend the scope of which would extend the scope of what clause 31 seeks to achieve, which is to prevent concealment of the real reasons for attempts to withdraw children from school, in particular by parents or a parent with something to hide. The clause does provide that the consent of the local authority is required. If there is a section 47 inquiry underway, or there has been a section 47 inquiry, an amendment 121 would extend the scope of the need for the local authorities to consent, which I support.

However, if we're talking about cracks, I would suggest that it could go further. The need for consent, I would suggest, should also be triggered if the Family Court in private law proceedings, has directed a report and investigation under section 37 of the Children Act, or has directed a local authority to report under section seven, experience shows. And certainly my experience is that it is often in private law proceedings that alarm bells first ring, and that is the first opportunity to investigate what really might be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happening in the family home. I would. Like to support my noble friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Like to support my noble friend in her sensible proposals in amendment 1 to 1 A. They obviously amendment 1 to 1 A. They obviously have cross-party support. The Bill proposes a power for local authorities to withhold consent to authorities to withhold consent to a child being removed from school in certain circumstances, and my
18:25
Baroness Shephard of Northwold Portrait Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Conservative)
-
-
noble friend's amendment strengthens that principle by giving a local authority the power to refuse consent. If a child has ever been subject to a child protection plan, or if they're currently defined as a section 17 child in need because of abuse or neglect. But, my Lords, it is important to remember that while education in this country is compulsory, schooling is not. And for some parents this is a very important principle which I which is why I support other amendments supported by my noble friend, to require a local authority to give its reasons for withholding consent, and also, importantly, to simplify the huge amount of information a parent choosing to educate their child at home currently has to provide.

My noble friend Lord Lucas, who is in his place, asked an apposite question at Committee stage when he asked what is the government's purpose in seeking to be so intrusive and punitive towards elective home education in this bill? My Lords, the vast majority of parents do not choose home schooling for their children, but for those that do, it is an important freedom. And I would like to say to the noble, the noble Baroness, the Minister, I'm flagging up a possible situation which is beyond this bill, because although parents may choose home schooling, for some it is becoming not a principle but a necessity.

And I'm looking at the parents of children with special needs who are forced into home schooling because the local authority cannot afford to provide for their child or offers unacceptable alternatives like return journeys to a school of 90 miles every day, or private tutoring in a public place. Of course, this is outside the scope of the bill, but it is a warning note because we may find that there then is established another category of home schooling, which is for parents who have been offered an unacceptable solution to their problem.
18:27
Lord Bishop of Manchester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)
-
-
I'll be very brief. It's an old, apparently African adage that it takes a village to raise a child, but it's no less true for that. I think what that captures in a few words is that the bringing up raising of a child is a balance, a partnership between the parents on the one hand, and the wider community on on the other hand. I think that's what we're trying to get at in this group of amendments this this evening. What are the what's an appropriate powers for the for the state to have and what should be simply left to parents? I think it's a long standing principle in this country that parents have the right to home educate their children, but where that becomes a proxy for hiding the children from the state and putting the children in a place where they are potentially at risk and danger, then clearly there are concerns that must be raised.

And so I think having listened carefully to this debate, I will if they're pressed to a division, I think I'll be supporting Baroness Barran in 1 to 1 A and maybe later at one three, one eight. I think they are as nuanced as we're probably going to get in a complex situation where we can all find bad ball to which we shouldn't be setting setting the field.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move amendment 164B and will speak also amendment 164B and will speak also to amendments 164C, 167A, one 78, to amendments 164C, 167A, one 78, one 7175 and 175 Z in my name. All these amendments are rooted in one these amendments are rooted in one concern. We've had a lot of debate already that touches on this. It's not whether the state may act, but not whether the state may act, but how it does so, not whether safeguarding matters because it
18:29
Lord Wei Portrait Lord Wei (Conservative)
-
-
does, but whether the systems we design can tell the difference between care and control, between between care and control, between help and coercion. I welcome those of the government's amendments, of the government's amendments, which strengthen scrutiny, including by using the affirmative procedure. That kind of restraint procedure. That kind of restraint doesn't weaken authority. It makes it legitimate. Where I differ is where further processes or where further processes or compulsory steps are placed on parents simply to complete a sequence support.

Yes, should be available. It shouldn't become mandatory and it shouldn't become a gateway. It should not become a gateway to enforcement. I cannot support the attempt by my noble friend, Mr. Baroness Barran to bring any safeguarding issue ever recorded into scope indefinitely. Records. Records are not infallible. Families can be referred in error. Incidents can be misunderstood. Accidents happen. None of this should follow a family forever treating any historic entry as permanently determinative risks turning safeguarding into a lifetime label, which is neither proportionate nor just.

It additionally risks turning mere safeguarding allegations into weapons to be used in perpetuity by activists who do not understand home education, and who may well be within a local authority or others in the community. Such a state of affairs, I believe, may violate established domestic and case law. On Miller. The College of Policing 2021 Ewca Civ 1926S and Marper v United Kingdom 2008, each R1581. I just want to make a point because obviously there's been a lot of talk of Sara Sharif the need to put in emergency breaks to prevent something like that ever happening again.

It is very clear from the report and the evidence that the bad egg was the father, that in additionally, safeguarding protocols and systems were deficient. We talked about the one third of care services that are basically broken. Not working isn't the real solution to sort out our child services system, because the reality is, as we add more regulations, as we're proposing to do tonight, both parents and those working in child services have one more rule to follow. And I think the evidence is they've had so many rules to follow, so many cases to investigate, that the few that are there relative to the scale of the problem we face are struggling to cope, adding more work for them, more false alarms, more meetings isn't necessarily going to fix it.

In the Sara Sharif case, there were very clear signals missed that could have been followed up on what's going to happen if we add more signals, more noise. But actually the poor social worker is so inundated that they can't actually really pick up on those signals. And I think this is a problem with a lot of this legislation, a lot of this bill, it means well, but the danger it's going to create more work. And I'm concerned that, you know, when parents want to home educate, whether because of emergency need.

Remember, a lot of the children involved have special needs or, you know, have have various kinds of stress that have come about since Covid or before. It is possible that a, a local authority and those around the child at that moment, perhaps not those who are familiar with home education, who have certain antagonism or thoughts or ideology against it, might go, well, actually, I disagree. You shouldn't do this, even if the reasons are legitimate. So I think we this is a lot more complex and nuanced than it might come across in some of the contributions we've we've had so far.

I will, however, support, therefore, amendments that seek greater clarity about the reasons for such a decision. Clarity is not administrative nicety. It is a safeguard. When people understand why something has happened, they can engage, respond and trust the system. Legal clarity is a prerequisite for passing convention muster. Just look at Sunday Times versus United Kingdom judgement 653874. In terms of my own amendments, I'm going to take them together because they express a single approach amendments 164B and 164C concern escalation.

The central question is simple should escalation be automatic? Or should it be considered a decision? Should it be a considered decision? As drafted, the bill leans towards automaticity. Conditions are met A, B, C, d the authority must act in my amendment restores judgement. It requires consideration of necessity, proportionality, the child's best interests. What are the same aim could be achieved in a less intrusive way. When escalation becomes routine, it stops being a safeguard and it becomes a process. A tick box processes move people along.

They do not look at them. I think this is already happening in our child services system. Amendment 164C reinforces this by requiring reasonable steps of support to be offered and recorded before escalation. The point is not paperwork. The point is getting the right order. Systems that begin with support build trust systems that begin with enforcement. Build resistance. Resistance is not the same thing as risk. Most parents who encounter these powers are not avoiding responsibility. Many are dealing with unmet needs, special education needs, mental health pressures, trauma, bullying or medical fragility.

Escalation should not be the opening move. It should be the last. You've got to think about the people that you're working with before you call them up for a meeting, or what may seem to them to be quite draconian. I now turn to amendments 178170A and 170B on home visits. A home visit isn't a neutral act, it's an intervention. It alters relationships. It signals authority. It's about the most intrusive of actions a state can take in family life.

And in a free society, intrusiveness should always be a last resort. Amendment 178 requires authorities to consider whether the information they seek could reasonably be obtained in a less intrusive way. That's not bureaucracy. It's a recognition of liberty and fundamental convention rights, especially article eight. You're sending in child services to look for a potential Sharif case in every home that they're visiting. That's essentially the line that you're giving them. Amendment 170B draws a clear boundary around compulsory home access.

It requires reasonable grounds to suspect significant harm and judicial authorisation. Refusal of a voluntary visit shouldn't itself be treated as evidence of wrongdoing. Safeguarding concerns, risk inspection concerns compliance. Confusing the two is dangerous. Once refusal becomes evidence, consent stops, meaning anything at all. Imagine if you're arrested by a policeman and you'll read your rights and you know you're making your own case or your refusal to provide information at that stage, possibly for ideological reasons, is then used, you know, as part of the evidence against you.

Amendment 167A reframes school attendance orders as a last resort, requiring a genuine last resort requiring clear evidence, exhaustion of less intrusive support and specific regards to the child's needs, well-being and wishes. It ensures that compulsion follows judgement, not procedure. Amendment 175 concerns educational neutrality. Many families are outside school because school was not safe for their child. Consider the 13 year old girl educated at home, because the boy who allegedly assaulted her at the local rural secondary school has not been excluded.

The law should not begin from an assumption that one lawful form of education is inherently safer or more legitimate than another. Presumptions shape systems. Neutrality does not mean indifference. It means looking before assuming. Finally, amendment 175E proposes a statutory school attendance code of conduct without a code. Practice fragments. Some authorities act cautiously, others act coercively families experience a postcode lottery. Today. That's not justice, it's accident. A statutory code would embed proportionality, transparency and predictability. It would make the system more legible.

Legibility is what allows trust to form. My Lords, none of these amendments denies the state its powers. They ask that those powers be exercised with care and in a manner that's compatible with the Human Rights Act. None of them we can safeguarding. They aim to make it more accurate. None of them privileges parents. They exist for the sake of children. I would urge the house to support them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mechanism. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In this bill, the new 4346 B1 says, asks the local authority to says, asks the local authority to consider that it will be in the child's best interest to receive
18:39
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
child's best interest to receive education by regular attendance at school. But no child attends school. They attend a school and they might attend the school well. The noble Lord Lord Hampton works fine. Well, they might go to the school depicted in episode two of adolescence, which would have me hoiking my child out in a millisecond. And there are a lot of schools like that. And so my noble friend's amendment one seven, 5ZD, I think is a really important potential addition to this bill.

There should not be a presumption that any school is better than any home education, because that is where we are heading in this bit of the bill. We are putting a duty on local authorities to judge, and we are giving them the presumption that the child should be put into school. That's the I know it's like buying IBM. When I was young, it was the safe choice. If they're going to allow someone to be home educated, they're taking all the risks on themselves.

If they took the child into school, any school, then there are no risks. So all the emphasis on how a local authority officer should behave is focussed on pushing the child into school, whatever the circumstances. So I, I think that is a deep fault in the bill as it is at the moment. And the right solution to it is the noble Lord. Lord Crisp amendment one two, two that there should be some court oversight over the judgement of local authorities.

Otherwise there's a complete imbalance. We know how local authorities behave. They drive into the easy answers because life is just. I only have 70 years experience of it. It's. It is the way it is, the natural human thing to do, to go for the safe answer and to stand up against that. You're really asking a huge amount of a local authority. We must produce somewhere in this bill a countervailing force. And I would, of the amendments on offer, choose one, two, two, and I hope the government will see its see the wisdom of moving in that direction.
18:41
18:42
18:42
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
that education is compulsory, schooling is not. We want all our schools, we want all our learning, all our education, whether it's in schools or at home, to be the best schools or at home, to be the best that can be provided. We want our schools to be safe. We want schools to be safe. We want children home educated to be safe. And let me remind you where we currently stand. And that is that anybody, anybody, any parent can take their child out of school just like that.

No notification, no form filling. They just take the child out and take them to the home. And apparently, hopefully, maybe definitely home educate them. But we don't know. We don't. We just don't know. So you can have some parents who are absolutely determined that their children get the best education that they can give them, but we also have situations where, for example, at the other extreme, we have unregistered fundamental religious schools which have been closed down, and the home educated children in small groups because they're allowed to and nobody knows what what is going on in those schools at all that cannot and is not right.

We need to know you can have a home educator who brings people in to enthuse, to inspire. You can have home educators who link up with other home educators and organise summer camps, or organise particular field trips. Wonderful. But at the other end you can have and we would never know. You can have a home education system where an individual is brought in to teach the children who might, for example, be a paedophile because there are no safeguarding requirements.

And actually we do not know. That is not the way our education system should work. Our children, whether they're at home or in school, should be safeguarded. Our children, whether at home or in school, should be properly taught and should be inspired, enthused, should learn, etcetera, etcetera. I was sort of conscious of 2 or 3 amendments, which I think are really important to me. I really like the idea or not the idea. Perhaps the wrong word of amendment one two, five in the name of Baroness May, because I want to see us move more and more to where home educators don't regard local authorities as interferers, but regard local authorities are people who can support and work with them.

And I think that one of the things that we need to understand is why parents want at home educate, and if they choose to go down that route, how we can support and help them. So I think a pilot scheme where we have a conversation with parents before they go down the route of home education is not interfering. It's not bullying. It's not suggesting they don't do it. It's listening to the the it. It's listening to the the concerns.

I, I think on reflection, I on amendment one to one to 1AI can understand where Baroness Barran is coming from. I have to say I personally have some concerns which are expressed by Lord Crisp, but we need to see and it really, for the first. Time ever, one of the amendments that Lord Wei moved, I actually had some agreement with and that I don't calm down, calm down, and that is that it's all very well. Us passing amendments and agreeing to them and walking away and thinking, haven't we done well? But it also means that we have to make sure that we put the resources in, we put the correct staffing in, and often that doesn't happen.

And because we haven't got the resources, we haven't got the staffing. And we all know from our own experiences that we've agreed something and suddenly, wow, there isn't a social worker available or wow, the social workers moved or wow, this hasn't happened and that cannot be right. So we need to we need to full proof any amendments we make. And on Baroness Barran amendment, I see the sense of it, but I hope it's not building up a fall because the number of the number of cases we'll have to deal with might be huge.

And are we prepared? And have we got the resources to put in to make that amendment work? And perhaps Baroness Barran, I am not that the principle is right, but it's about, again, about the resources. I, I just want to pay. Finally, I think tribute to all those people in the past who've campaigned for what I would call home education, which is safe and works, who actually have been almost laughed out of court and told this is a nonsense, you know, and they've kept going and and they and they were right.

And I can think in a member's name, a Labour member who had a in the House of Lords who had a private member's bill, and he nearly got it there. And then we had prorogation. It didn't happen. I can actually think of Baroness Baron who school famous schools bill that nearly happened and had it happened had had academies not got in the way, I think we'd have we'd have now been almost on the road to home education. Lord Lucas was smiling, and I always, I always value Lord Lucas contributions.

The difference is that you can, if you hoick a child, as you're saying, out of school, you can choose another school to take them to. You can't hoick a child out of home education. They've got to have it whether they like it or not. If the parents decide to home educate. So I, I am today is quite for me. It's quite because I had a private member's bill, of course, on home education as well. For me, it's quite an important moment on home education side, but I also think many of the amendments on making sure that children are always safe or as safe as we possibly can make them, are included in amendments in this bill.
18:49
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I was going to start >> My Lords, I was going to start where the noble Lord Lord Storey finished in recognising the work of finished in recognising the work of the noble Lord, Lord soley, who the noble Lord, Lord soley, who really did devote a huge amount of time and many years to this issue. And I hope somewhere in his retirement he's aware of what's happening here. To be clear, my Lords, as we've discussed previously, there are at least three groups of families who educate their children at home.

There are those who do so for philosophical reasons. There are those and who where they make a positive choice. There are those who feel their children are struggling at school and may not have chosen home education, but believe that it's in the best interests of their child to withdraw them from school, many of whom, as we heard, including from my noble friend Baroness Shephard, have special educational needs and those who are removed from school, potentially, in some cases, faced with exclusion from school or other issues where we are right to have concerns about their safety and the noble Lord Lord Crisp, who genuinely I have huge respect for, and I'm very grateful for the very collaborative way he's worked on this bill across the House, talked about serious case reviews, but of course, two thirds of serious case reviews are of children of pre-school age.

So I think we're not comparing apples with apples. The government has introduced some very serious, albeit belated, positive amendments to the bill in in part in response to the recommendations from the review into the death of Sarah Sharif. And again, like Lord Storey, we welcome government amendments 125 and 131 in particular, which would pilot holding a meeting with parents before removing a child from school and giving the option of a visit within 15 days of a child starting home education.

But in principle, we support almost all of the government amendments in this group. But my Lords Government amendments 120 and one 2131 leave material gaps which we have. Do I mean 120 or do I mean 121? I mean 121? Apologies, leave material gaps, which I believe we have a duty to close. And I was very fortunate to meet recently the authors of the Sara Sharif Serious Case Review, Russell Waite and Jane Wonnacott, in their as independent experts in this area, I revised amendments to clauses 31 and 32 of the bill stem largely from that conversation, and might have made a difference in her case, but also in many others.

And, of course, the National Practice Review panel report looked at the cases of 41 home educated children, six of whom died and 35 suffered serious harm. And of this group, half had never been to school and just over half had no agency involvement at the time. So not all these children were visible in any way at all. But I do think we need to be able to talk about this group of children without in any way casting aspersions on the good intentions, aspersions on the good intentions, commitment and.

Efforts of parents who are bringing up their children by educating them at home who are not at risk. But we do need to learn lessons from these reviews. That's why we write them, and we have to have a proportionate approach to the risk those children face. So I'm very grateful to the other noble Lords who have signed my amendment. But I also would point out to the House that my amendment 121 A has the support of the Children's Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza.

My amendment. 121 A tightens up the conditions which would give the local authority the ability to withhold consent for a child to be electively home educated. In contrast, as we heard to the government's amendment, which would be limited to a child who'd been on a child protection register within the last five years, so what my amendment would do would include children who had ever been subject to care proceedings, whether or not they resulted in a care order. And as my noble friend Baroness Spielman said, you know, moving into care proceedings is a very serious or perhaps it was the noble and learned Lord Meston forgive me, maybe it was both, but that's a very, very serious move on the part of the state.

And if we just take Sarah's case, there were two care orders applied for in her short life. Neither were successful. It would also include children who'd ever been subject to child protection inquiries or being placed on the child Protection register, and again, in Sarah's case, she was only on a child protection plan at birth, so the government's amendment would have made no difference in her case. But I think, perhaps most importantly, they currently include children who are defined as a child in need under section 17 of the Children Act.

Now, the government has already included within section 17 those children who are in a special school because of their special educational needs and disabilities, but they have expressly excluded children who are section 17 child in need because of abuse or neglect. Now, the department's own data recently showed there are almost 30,000 children categorised as a child in need, who are suffering child sexual abuse, and a further 12,000 who are sexually exploited. So the bar for what is a child in need has moved up and up with the pressures that we've seen on the child protection system.

And I really hope that the noble Lady, the Minister, Minister, when she comes to reply, will address that point because I it makes me. Anxious with my experience in child protection. These children are under much less scrutiny than a child who is on a plan. They are the more vulnerable children, and I think they need to be included in this group. Now, when I met with officials, they argued that the government's reforms would mean that all those children who are sexually exploited or sexually abused would now be on a child protection plan.

But I would rather on the side of caution and make sure that we capture them in this. I entirely accept the noble Lord Lords Crisp's point regarding adoption, and that was an oversight in the drafting of my amendment. But can we just be clear the consequence of this is that a child has to go to school where not the consequence is not endless involvement of a local authority in a family's life. The child goes to school, something which the vast majority of children in this majority of children in this country do.

The my amendment 131AI think perhaps has been slightly misunderstood. So to be clear, it says that a local authority must do a home visit if the child has ever been subject to care proceedings or has been on a child protection plan. Not if there have been investigations that, as were suggested, might be malicious, and if they are currently a child in need. And of course, the noble Lord Lord Crisp is right. For some children home is the safe space, but for too many children, home actually is the exact opposite of that.

And we need to just walk over the threshold on behalf of those children. I accept there have been concerns about my amendment 121 B and there is nothing that I would want to do that would put particularly victims of domestic abuse at further risk. And I hope the government can come back with something that is workable there. But anyone who's worked in child protection will know that the line between the child who dies or is seriously harmed and the child who survives is a very, very fine line.

It might come down to the school or the neighbours, or the bus driver or somebody noticing something and acting. So what my amendments aim to do is to cast the net in a proportionate way, which drives professional curiosity on the part of local authority staff, but allow us to identify those children who are at risk of suffering, neglect or abuse if they're taken out of school and if they become invisible. I hope very much the noble Baroness, the Minister will be able to address those points.
19:00
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Minister for Women and Equalities) (Labour)
-
-
So I will focus on the detail of >> So I will focus on the detail of the amendments in this group, rather than some of the broader arguments that have been made by noble Lords. We have both in Second Reading and Committee stage, talked about the breadth of issues around home education at quite considerable length, I think. So focusing on amendment 120, a table by the noble Lord Lord Crisp, which would seek to exclude adopted children from the consent mechanism who would otherwise be in scope because they were on a child protection plan within the last five years, where that plan was discharged prior to them being adopted.

We do recognise that different groups of children may need different approaches. It is important to emphasise that local authorities must give consent unless the legislative tests for refusal are met, and we will provide guidance to local authorities on how they should approach consent decisions and will consider making particular reference to adopted children. But we do not want to exempt adopted children from the consent measure. These children are likely still vulnerable because of the circumstances leading to their adoption and the significant transition and likely trauma involved.

And as with all children, school can be a protective factor, offering familiarity and consistency. Removing these children from schools could further destabilise them, increasing vulnerability to further harm. But of course, parents have adopted children will already be known to the local authority and we would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

expect checks to be. Just ask the thank you. May I just ask that the noble Lady. So just ask that the noble Lady. So you're saying that a local authority that has just granted authority that has just granted authority to parents to take what is often a difficult child who has is often a difficult child who has had trauma in their background, to take responsibility for them for take responsibility for them for life that you're then going to fairly soon afterwards, second guess them about how they should do the education.

Is that what you're saying? I mean, you may say do it softly, but essentially you're

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that's what you're saying. You're not. You're going to make them jump through yet another hoop. No, that isn't what I'm saying.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, that isn't what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that these are children, almost by definition, who will have gone through difficult will have gone through difficult and traumatic circumstances and therefore the opportunity within therefore the opportunity within that five year period to have the that five year period to have the the process for ensuring that they would not be better served by staying at school, we think, is something that would serve those children well, but we do. What I was coming on to say was that, of course, those parents will already be well known to the local authority, and we would expect those checks to be relatively quick because the relevant information and relationship with the parents is already built.

Turning to amendment 121A, tabled by the noble Baroness, lady Baron, I would like to thank the noble Lady as well as the noble Lord, Lord Russell and others for their constructive engagement. Last week they've referenced the meeting that they had with my officials. Of course, it was also with Steve Crocker, the non-executive board member for the department and former president of the Association of Directors of Children's Services and the DCS in Hampshire on the detail of their amendment, an amendment which would seek to extend the requirement to get permission to withdraw a child from school to home, educate them to a much broader group of children to include all children who are or who have ever been the subject of a child protection enquiry or child protection plan.

Those who are or have ever been the subject of proceedings relating to supervision or care orders, and children who are currently receiving support and services as a child in need under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, we tabled our amendment to extend the requirement to children who have recently been discharged from child protection plans because we felt that five years is a reasonable period in which to expect a family to show sustainable change, extending the time frame to consider all children previously subject to a child protection enquiry or plan, and include including those who have been subject to proceedings or are currently receiving support from children's social care.

Risks discouraging families from agreeing to accept support and services early, or may lead to them withdrawing from this support. If consent from the local authority is required to home educate the noble prelate. The Right Reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Manchester called this the the. The amendment a nuanced approach. Well, it isn't a nuanced approach because it actually aims to use this specific consent provision to solve much wider issues within the bill and goes far beyond in terms of the breadth of children, that it would encompass, those that the government's amendment includes.

It's exactly the opposite of what we want to achieve through the Families First programme, where we want to broaden the group that come forward for help at the earliest possible opportunity. Noble Lords have quite rightly expressed their concern about the children who fall through the cracks in the system. But that's the reason why we're fixing the system that safeguards and protects children. It's why we're investing £2.4 billion in rolling out the Families First Partnership programme. It's why we are developing multi-agency child protection teams in every local area, legislating for better information sharing and a stronger role for education and childcare settings in local safeguarding arrangements.

These. These measures are designed to identify and support children who need help and protection quicker. If we can just pause for a moment as well. And I think the noble Lord Lord Storey touched on this. This amendment would capture every parent whose child has ever been the subject of a child protection enquiry, who wishes to remove that child from school? Let's not forget a section 47 inquiry is a significant event for a family, an intrusion into family life without consent. And I know that we all agree that this is the right thing to protect children from harm where it is needed.

But last year alone, just under 200,000 children aged between 5 and 15 years were the subject of an inquiry. And whilst I recognise that only a small number of these parents will want to home educate, it would be both a significant undertaking for a local authority and a significant additional intrusion for those parents, where concerns were not substantiated and no further action was taken. And in terms of broadening the consent measure to include children where supervision or care proceedings are or have been initiated.

Once again, it's a significant undertaking for the local authority to seek court intervention in family life, and in these circumstances, the local authority should and will be assessing the safety and wellbeing of the children. Most of these children will have been on child protection plans before proceedings are initiated, so will already be be within the consent measure and where proceedings are historic and there are still safeguarding concerns, these children should be being picked up through existing safeguarding mechanisms, such as those already captured by the existing consent requirements.

The question I think we need to ask ourselves is whether or not this is a proportionate approach. I understand the concerns to mitigate risk at every possible occasion, but we do also need to recognise that this is I. We don't believe, the appropriate tool to be using when this bill is about improving the whole of the system much more radically. Turning to amendment 131A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which would require local authorities to visit the child's home environment for certain groups of children.

Amendment one through one already provides sufficient safeguards by allowing local authorities to consider the child's home and other education settings, and to request a visit to meet the child. Local authorities should already be undertaking home visits as part of their regular oversight of children, subject to child protection enquiries or plans, children on child in need plans and those involved in care or supervision proceedings. Statutory guidance working together to safeguard children is very clear that as part of their duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children in their area, this would include visiting children that need help, support or protection and we will also clarify in statutory guidance on the registers that these children should be prioritised for visits at the point of registration.

Amendment one two, one be tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Baron, which seeks to ensure that the views of all parents of the child are considered as part of the local authority's decision to grant permission for a child to be removed from school for home education. In most cases, My Lords, we would expect local authorities to seek the views of all parents when they are considering whether to grant consent. However, there will be situations where doing so would be inappropriate. I think we can imagine what some of those might be, and of course, requiring the local authority to consult with all of those with parental responsibility could delay a consent decision in circumstances where, for example, estranged parents are hard to reach.

We will make this clear in statutory guidance. Turning to amendment one two, two, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Crisp, which would require a court to confirm the local authority's assessment that it is in the child's best interest to receive education by regular attendance at school. Local authorities, we believe, will be well placed to make these decisions as they will be aware of the child's circumstances and can draw on multi-agency expertise as well as parental views in their decision making. Introducing a requirement for court confirmation would add unnecessary delays.

Turning to amendment one, two three, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Baron, which seeks to require local authority to provide a statement of reasons if they refuse to grant permission for a child at a special school to be home educated. I wholly agree that we that it is right for reasons to be provided, and we intend to make this clear in statutory guidance, which we will consult on, and we will also, in that consultation, consider to what extent local authorities reasons for a decision should include the costs and benefits to the child of permission being granted or refused in amendment one, two, four, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp seeks to ensure that the process by which parents can appeal a consent decision made by a local authority is transparent and fair.

Part A of this amendment makes many sensible suggestions. I don't think it's necessary to place this level of detail on the face of the bill, and I wrote to noble Lords earlier this month outlining the department's intention to provide more in-depth guidance on the appeals process, which will include target timelines and examples of the type of evidence that may be submitted. But I'm afraid I don't agree with part B of the amendment. The tribunal process can be lengthy, and these types of cases do not fall within the remit of the Local Government Ombudsman.

The appeals process proposed in the Bill is uncomplicated, objective and will be the most efficient route for parents to get a final decision. Amendment 125A tabled by the noble Lord Lord Crisp, which seeks to amend the provisions of the government amendment to establish a pilot scheme of mandatory meetings. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the intention that lies behind his amendment. The government's amendment places a clear requirement on local authorities to record the outcome of these of this, these meetings, should this provision be accepted, statutory guidance will make explicit that the record must include any concerns parents express about schools, as well as actions taken by the authority in response.

As part of the pilot, we intend to gather this information so that we can understand how it is being used and how it might drive improvements across the system. This is a call made by other noble Lords as well, so that we can get a better understanding of the reasons why. And this was raised by the noble Lady Baroness Shephard, the reasons why parents are withdrawing their children from school. Turning to amendments 164B, 164C and 167A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord way, which seek to give discretion or place limitations on when local authorities may issue preliminary notices or school attendance orders.

My. The Department agrees that it is important that local authorities work to foster positive relations with home educating families. That is why this bill introduces a support duty, and we have tabled an amendment to require local authorities to offer home educating parents a bi annual forum to discuss any concerns or issues. However, if a child is in potentially unsuitable education or education that isn't in their best interests, action must be taken without delay. Turning to amendments 170 A and 170 B, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Wei, which seek to place limitations on when a local authority could request a home visit.

When considering whether a school attendance order should be served by this stage of the school attendance order process, a local authority will already have used informal enquiries and a preliminary notice to the parent to obtain information about the child's education. A parent will therefore have had several opportunities to satisfy the local authority that their child is in receipt of a suitable education, requiring a local authority to obtain a court order to conduct a visit would not be an appropriate use of the court's time, and could prolong the time a child spends receiving an unsuitable education, and we will use statutory guidance to help local authorities sensitively conduct these visits, and are also developing a training package for local authorities, focusing on their new duties.

Turning to amendment 175Z tabled in the name of the noble Lord Lord Wei. This amendment is unnecessary because section seven of the education 1990 Education Act, 1996 is clear that education otherwise than at school is a legitimate, legitimate choice for parents. Incidentally, a point that has been made by the government throughout the whole of this debate and Bill consideration. Turning to amendment 175ZE tabled in the name of the noble Lord Lord Wei, which seeks to require the Secretary of State to issue a code of conduct in respect of attendance.

There is already statutory guidance which sets out in detail the roles and responsibilities for all of the institutions and persons listed in this amendment in relation to improving school attendance and attendance. The Department published the Working Together to Improve School Attendance guidance in 2022 following full public consultation, and it was updated less than 18 months ago in August 2024. My Lords, this has been a wide ranging set of amendments, but I hope that I've addressed noble Lords and concerns in these amendments, and I beg to move the government amendments and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

particularly Government Amendment 120. Just before the noble Lady sits down. I wonder if I'm slightly disappointed to hear she didn't comment about something which I would like to hear from her. Lord Lucas, who I have enormous admiration for, for, and he was particularly he was very kind about mothball just now. He described mothball just now. He described there being plenty of schools like episode two of adolescence. Now, my Lords, it really bugs me that whilst adolescence is an extraordinary piece of drama, it is now being taken as a documentary.

It is a dystopian view of schools. I wonder whether that the noble Lady, the Minister, could actually assure the House that they're not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

plenty of schools like episode two of adolescence. More than happy to do that. But the point that we have raised the point that we have raised consistently throughout this is it is right that parents have the ability to home educate their ability to home educate their children if that is what they choose to do. But the idea that they're forced into doing that because the vast majority of our because the vast majority of our schools are bad, is just simply wrong. The vast majority of our schools do a very good job for schools do a very good job for children, and that's why the vast majority of children are educated

**** Possible New Speaker ****

within them and benefit from that. Lord Beith is in the name of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Beith is in the name of the noble Lord Chris. Does he wish to respond to the debate?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

respond to the debate? Realise that, my Lords, that that I have the chance to respond that I have the chance to respond well, I feel somewhat outnumbered on a number of the things that I've
19:17
19:18
19:18
19:29
None Portrait AMDT: 127 Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)
-

>> My Lords, I wish to speak on amendments one, two, seven, 129 and amendments one, two, seven, 129 and 130, all in my name and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. I thank him for his support. As I thank him for his support. As always, my Lords, these amendments are on behalf of young performers are on behalf of young performers in the fast paced and flourishing entertainment industry, and I congratulate all the young people involved in films nominated for the BAFTA Awards.

My Lords, I have worked closely with spotlight experts on international child performance, licensing and child licence coordinators who all have a wealth of experience dealing with child performers and the issues that surround them and their well-being. And I thank them all for their hard work and commitment. My Lords, I'd also like to thank the Minister and the officials for the many meetings we have had discussing the issues and complexity of child performers not in school Register. My Lords, the children not in School Register seeks to safeguard children in elective home education or children who are out of school in alternative education arrangements, by tracking who is providing education and where.

My Lords, as this stands, unfortunately it will have the unintended consequences of child performers who will be added to the register. My Lords, when children are educated under the authority of a performance licence, they're considered flexi school with absent permission given by the school. My Lords, for child performers to be added to the register, it will mean when a child is educated under a performance licence, any provision of education must be noted on the application and and the statutory time frame for this is 21 days in advance.

But my Lords, at this point the education provisions for child performers may not be possible to confirm. My Lords, it is unworkable to state the exact tutor who will be undertaking this duty on a specific day in advance. With 350 children filming during a six month period, for example. This is what could happen on the new Harry Potter television series with the proposed ruling. If there is a team of freelance tutors, all possible individuals would need to be listed. My Lords, it will be a nightmare, my Lords, because children can perform on several different productions over the course of a 12 month period, each with a different tutor or different educational settings.

Each time a child performs on a project requiring tutoring, their details would need to be amended on the register as the as as the register would be incorrect. Yes, it would be a nightmare. My Lords, where a child is licensed to perform abroad, the local authority provides no oversight across the educational provision or safeguarding of the child. And crucially, there is disconnect between any requirements that the Register would impose on local authority. A young person's working abroad order is granted by a magistrate court and is outside the provision of this bill and its intentions.

However, amendment 130. However, if amendment 130 is adopted, there would be requirement for connectedness between the two bodies under the umbrella of the 2014 Child Performance Regulations. My Lords, in reality, children who perform regardless of their school setting will require consent amendments to the register for the local authority to remain compliant. Children who attend school will be on and off the register where tutoring is completed outside the school setting. My Lords, I am concerned about the administrative burden of adding multiple children to the register across many productions, and the repetitive strain that this would cause.

Local authorities, who now very rarely have a designated full time officer in this role. My Lords safeguarding should be at the heart of protecting children's performers, not to create administrative and repetitive burdens resulting to loss of opportunity and driving away investments. My Lords, as the bill stands, there's a real possibility that depending on how each individual local authority chooses to apply the requirements for a register, that young performers may miss out on opportunities to perform simply because their local authority has chosen a rigid application for requirements for the register that does not meet the real working conditions of the creative industry.

My Lords, casting directors will simply not be able to cast young performers from those local authorities that require unavailable information far too much in advance for industry working practices or the local authority will not apply educational conditions consistently, where young performers will Yo-Yo on and off to register with multiple engagements over a short period of time. My Lords, it would be far, far simpler for young performers to be dealt with outside the register. This is why I have tabled these amendments to specifically exclude child performers from the requirements of the Not in School register, which I hope I dearly hope the Minister will accept.

My Lords, in conclusion, can I ask the Minister if the government will commit to reviewing the 2014 Child Performance Regulation to bring it up to date and to have a complete overhaul in order to include all the necessary improvements that are needed concerning child performers, so that children's well-being remain at the centre of all decisions which needs to be made with the best interest at heart. I look forward to the Minister's response, and I beg to move.
19:36
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
Clause 32, page 57, line 11. Leave out C and insert D. Leave out C and insert D. >> Added my name in support of amendments 127 and 129, tabled by amendments 127 and 129, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and outlined so eloquently by her just now. I signed also the just now. I signed also the amendments that she had on a similar topic during earlier stages of the Bill, and I commend her for pursuing this important topic throughout the passage of the bill.

I wasn't able to be here for the debates that we had on this issue in committee, but followed the detailed exchanges that the noble Baroness had with the Minister then. And I know that they've been talking fruitfully outside the chamber as well, which I was glad to hear reading those early exchanges. However, I must say I was struck by how thick the jungle of regulation has become in this area and how hard it is as a consequence for parents and teachers of young people who are offered these important and beneficial experiences to help take up what can be truly life changing opportunities for them in a simpler era.

I was somebody who benefited from such an opportunity. At the age of 13, I played a French ghost called Guillaume in a children's television drama broadcast on Halloween 1996. That opportunity came about by chance. The writer of the show had worked with some of the teachers at my state comprehensive, and I think my casting had less to do with my acting prowess and more the fact I could do a passable French accent and bore a striking similarity to the chap who'd been cast as the character who was to be my twin brother.

But it was an unforgettable and formative experience. We went to film it and ruined Chateau in Dijon, and I was paid the princely sum of £400, which will always be the most pleasing payslip I've ever received. Crucially, I was given the opportunity on the condition that I carried on my work and my dad had to come with me to make sure that I did the homework, schoolwork that I missed while we were away filming. But looking at the the forms and the regulations which the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin has and the forbidding system brought about by the bill as currently drafted, I do wonder whether schools and families like mine would be able to seize the same opportunities as easily as I was able to 30 years ago, so I very much support the noble Baroness crusade to make this as simple as possible, including her call for a review of the 2014 regulations when they were brought in in the coalition government, there was a commitment then to look at them after ten years and that time has now elapsed, and I do hope that the government will look at it as the noble Baroness, lady Benjamin has said, what we have doesn't recognise the complexity of the creative industries and the sectors.

This is a place where filming schedules can change at last minute, where young actors opportunities often overlap, and certainly where decisions need to be taken at a faster pace than the capacity of many local authorities, I think, will be able to. There's also a very important issue of equity and social mobility that lies behind this. The harder we make it for children from ordinary backgrounds to take up opportunities such as this. And if we give the impression by calling them an unauthorised absence, or sending the message that this might adversely affect schools Ofsted ratings, then the fewer children from state schools who are going to see take up opportunities like this.

So while the gap has been closing a bit in recent years, the arts and creative industries are sectors in which children from public and private schools seem to have a head start. A report by the Sutton Trust and the Creative Industries Policy and Research Centre last November showed that BAFTA nominated actors are still five times more likely to have attended a fee paying school than the population as a whole. We are already missing out on countless other Gatwa's and Jodie comers to name just two talented actors from state schools who've managed to beat the odds.

And we should be seeking to narrow that gap, not widen it. I do hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, when she comes to respond, will support these very sensible amendments from Lady Benjamin. But there should also take the opportunity to send the message from the Dispatch Box that taking up opportunities like this is something very worthwhile do.
19:40
Lord Wei Portrait Lord Wei (Conservative)
-
-
Hear, hear. Thank you. >> My Lords. >> I beg to move. Amendment 148C and I shall speak to other amendments in my name in this group. amendments in my name in this group. Amendments 1578161B161. C164A175 ZF and 254. Together they address the foundations of clause 32 and the proposed register of children not in school. And I want to begin by recognising where the government has listened, where Ministers have accepted the need for stronger parliamentary scrutiny, clearer procedures and narrowing of discretion through the affirmative process and other means.

And this deserves acknowledgement. Restraint is not a weakness in law. It's what makes power credible. First, I want to address the deeper question raised by amendments 164, A175 ZF and 254. These are not separate concerns. They express a single constitutional proposition. And I think we heard a little bit just now in terms of the restrictions, you know, that that many families in the creative industries will face. I would extend that to all families. Many families have complex lives, fast changing in home education.

We have a lot of online activity. I don't think it's necessarily, you know, a huge world of difference. I accept that children in sort of acting sort of situations have a particular particular situation. But I do think those who are in home education circumstances also have quite complex schedules as well. And so many of the same arguments that were made in relation to that group, I think, actually apply to many, many families that are going to be swept in by the bill.

A universal and persistent register of lawful families, together with the data infrastructure that flows from it, isn't a proportional response to safeguarding risk. Proportionality lies at the very core of the balance between legitimate state regulatory power and civil and conventional liberties. Safeguarding in this country has always been based on thresholds reasonable cause, identifiable risk, particular children. Clause 32 alters that logic. Oversight becomes the default, while risk is inferred from how families respond to oversight. This is a significant change in the relationship between families and the state.

Once a universal system is built, it rarely remains narrow. Secondary uses accumulate, data sharing expands, retention grows. Each future tragedy becomes an argument for more routine intervention. None of this requires malice. It flows naturally from administrative logic and institutional risk aversion. The House should therefore ask a simple, practical question what problem does a universal register solve that cannot already be addressed through existing powers? The answer is none. Local authorities already have extensive safeguarding tools. They can make enquiries.

They can assess needs, they can convene multi-agency responses. They can go to court. None of these powers requires a population level database of lawful families. If the concern is that some children fall through the cracks, that's serious. It doesn't logically entail universal monitoring. The proper response examine how targeted systems fail, as in the tragic case of Sara Sharif, and to strengthen them. Strengthen the response under the current rules, not to construct a permanent identification spine for hundreds of thousands of children, most of whom are not at risk and many of whom are educated outside school precisely because they're vulnerable.

These amendments, therefore ask the House to pause before constructing an infrastructure that normalises permanent oversight of lawful difference. They do not deny safeguarding. They challenge inevitability. However, if the House is not persuaded to remove the register entirely, then the minimum duty upon us is to bind it with strong statutory safeguards. This brings me to the second tier of amendments. In this group, those concerned with review, transparency and redress. I strongly support a move amendments 148C and 161B, which introduce time limits, rolling review and active parliamentary re-authorisation.

These are not wrecking devices, they're constitutional hygiene. Government is good at building systems and much less good at dismantling them. Review mechanisms force Parliament to look again. With evidence in hand. They create a lawful route for correction, refinement and, if necessary, reversal without waiting for scandal or litigation, which home education leaders and legal advisers are suggesting to me will spiral. Should such systems in their current form be taken forward? I also commend amendment 157A, which requires annual anonymised statistics on how these powers are used in practice, how many families are affected, how many appeals succeed, how many complaints are upheld, how often orders are withdrawn.

This isn't bureaucracy, it's democratic accountability. If Parliament cannot see how these powers operate on the ground, it can't judge proportionality. It can't detect postcode lotteries. It cannot tell whether escalation is becoming routine rather than exceptional. Transparency strengthens safeguarding by anchoring it to reality. And finally, I urge noble Lords to support amendment 161C, which creates an independent route of redress through the Local Government Ombudsman and pauses enforcement while disputes are live, unless there's reasonable suspicion of significant harm. This is about legitimacy.

Safeguarding depends on cooperation. Cooperation depends on trust. Trust depends on accessible remedies. Judicial review is not a realistic option for most families. An ombudsman route is proportionate, independent and effective. It improves decision making at source and prevents irreversible harm while disputes are still being resolved. The logic of this group is straightforward a universal register is the wrong architecture for safeguarding its untargeted, disproportionate, and risks normalising permanent oversight of lawful families, which itself risks being unlawful and conflicts with GDPR legislation.

If the House nevertheless insists on building it, then this must not be allowed to harden into permanence. Without proof. It must be bound by review, active parliamentary review, annual transparency and meaningful independent redress. Either way, the principle remains the same safeguarding must be evidence led, proportionate and lawful. It must remain capable of correction. It must not quietly recode lawful educational diversity as a category requiring permanent surveillance. I do recommend these amendments to the House and thank you.
19:47
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
I got around to reading all of the all of these amendments today, and I was actually quite impressed and I was actually quite impressed because I felt in some ways, this is your Lordships' House at its best, because this is all from personal experience. People are talking about something they know very, very intimately and and therefore can put the necessary emphasis where it matters. And the noble Lady, Lady Benjamin le Petit Guillaume, noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the noble Lord, Lord way, with his home, home schooling.

Personally, for me, I feel that we have completely failed children who are home educated. I think that we have just not understood exactly how important that aspect of education is for. For many children at the moment, there's excessive data powers, legal ambiguity, erosion of longstanding parental rights. It just seems it it's so much worse than it could be. And I do feel very sad about that. I have three grandchildren who are home educated, two of them who are now studying at Cambridge and the other who is making films.

So their home education didn't actually hold them back. I'm concerned about the digital ID, there's no safeguards on sharing that information. There's unchecked powers for the local authorities. There's there was no meaningful consultation or risk assessment. And therefore home educated children are subjected to a high level of scrutiny and data extraction. And it just seems we're going to a place where a lot of children are going to be very, very disadvantaged because being taught at home is not an option for them.
19:49
19:49
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Information for Parliament on what is happening in home education, and I very much hope that we will receive that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speak to the two amendments in. Benjamin's name. I hope I'll be Benjamin's name. I hope I'll be able to see Lord Parkinson on YouTube. Was it a goose, did you say? Look, our creative industries are hugely important to this country, are world leaders and actually children and young people play a huge part in the success of our creative industries. One of my pupils, Josh bolt, was a regular on Last Tango in Halifax and Benidorm. Sadly, and I know that actually the schooling side work for Josh.

We are so lucky to have people, you know, in all in this house, people who have real expertise in particular areas and Baroness Benjamin brings it obviously in, in her particular performing arts sector. And I think we have to listen with great care to what she says. And for one, understand, I remember during the coalition, when we did promise a review of. When we think pact were involved then, weren't they? And that that that decision in 2014 needs to be looked at.

We shouldn't we need obviously to ensure that that young people, if they're acting or performing, are safeguarded. We need to make sure that their education is there. But we also need to make sure that the system does not prohibit them or doesn't stop them actually making a valuable contribution, but also for their own, their own career development. So I hope the Minister will say some warm and wise words on those two amendments.
19:51
19:53
Baroness Blake of Leeds Portrait Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
the registration system works and it captures the appropriate children and make sure that it's it doesn't in any way undermine young people's ambitions. And I think that is that was a very good point that was made. So turning to amendments 127 129 and tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. Taken together, these amendments would exclude all child performers from inclusion in the children, not in school registers.

And again, I'd like to thank the noble Lady for her productive engagement with the department and of course, with the with the Minister on these issues that she obviously cares very passionately about. I think she's in agreement that home education, child performance should remain in scope of the registers. For this reason, we cannot accept the Noble Bonuses amendment, which would exclude all child performance from the registers, however quickly. I am pleased to confirm that this government does intend to exclude school registered child performance from scope of the registers, and will consult on this position as part of our wider consultations on the content of the regulations, and I hope that does give her the reassurance that she's been seeking through the conversations that she's been having.

Turning to amendment 130, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, seeking to place a duty on local authorities to ensure that any children taking part in a performance who are not being captured on the children not in school register, are registered under the existing Child Performance Regulations. I appreciate the noble Ladies desire to ensure that children can take part in performance opportunities, whilst also ensuring that appropriate safeguards are in place. And I think the noble Lord Polak made a very good point about making sure all children can take up these incredible offers when they when they come along, and I would like to reassure her that existing legislation already requires children undertaking certain performances in related activities to be licensed with the relevant local authority.

This would remain the case regardless of whether a child was also registered at a on a children not in school register, and as such this amendment is not required. We recognise the need to review child performance regulations and this government is committed to doing so as agreed. When the noble Lady met with my noble friend, the Minister and officials last September, this review will take account of her concerns and I'm sure she'll look forward to further evidence of that work coming forward.

And of course, putting children at the heart of everything we do and throughout this legislation is absolutely central to our ambition to support young people in this country. Turning now to government amendment 128, seeking to clarify that children who attend school on agreed part time arrangements can be included in the Children Not in school register, where they are also receiving education outside of the school setting. This amendment is necessary to ensure local authorities have oversight of these children, and can be confident that their overall education is suitable.

Turning to Government Amendment 156, which clarifies a local authority, may ask an out of school education provider to confirm whether they are providing education to children, whether or not those children live in the local authority in the authority's area. This will help local authorities identify those children not recorded on registers, but who should be not. Having this clarification risks a loophole where registration is avoided simply by sending children to providers outside of their home authority.

Regards to Government Amendment 157 also clarifies how the provider duty will work in practice. This amendment would clarify that providers subject to the duty only need to give information on children living in England and Wales. We recognise there are providers that have significant online or international offerings that may be captured by the duty on out of school education providers, as the children not in school registers only apply to children in England and Wales, it would be inappropriate for local authorities to receive details of children outside of these countries.

Turning to amendment 157, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Wei, seeking to require the Secretary of State to publish annual anonymised statistics on the operation of the registers and school attendance orders. We already publish annual anonymised statistics on home educated children and school attendance orders drawn from local authorities, voluntary registers. And I just want to emphasise, once the children are not in school, registers are implemented, the department intends to continue doing so. And where this would not identify, individuals also publish the number of complaints and appeals along with their outcomes.

Turning to amendments 1848C and 161B, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Hain. I don't want to leave Baroness Jones's experience out of out of this, but also these would require the registered to be reviewed, their findings published, and for the register to be approved by Parliament within a set time frame. My Lords, we will evaluate the impact of the registers following implementation and will communicate it to the House. It is unnecessary and inappropriate to create uncertainty for families and local authorities by placing sunset clauses on this legislation.

Turning to amendment 161C also tabled by the noble Lord Lord Wei, seeking to give parents an independent right of appeal to decisions made by a local authority under sections four, three, six, B to four, six, three, four, three, six G and prevent local authority enforcement action where apparent has lodged an appeal. Ombudsman complaints or judicial review unless there is suspicion of harm to the child, the Ombudsman's remit broadly covers any administrative action taken by the local authorities in England, unless specifically excluded by the legislation, so decisions under these sections would be in scope for investigation unless an alternative appeal route is specified, as is the case now, parents will be able to refer complaints about a local authority to the Ombudsman.

The Department for education is engaging with the Ombudsman to help make this process clearer. For parents with regards to enforcement action. Whilst a complaint or appeal is considered, there is a risk that the noble Lords Amendment could prolong the time a child spends receiving an unsuitable education, which we cannot support. Turning to government amendments 162, 163 164, which would make all regulations attached to the children not in school registers, subject to the affirmative procedure in England and Wales.

My Lords, these regulations concern the administrative and technical details of how the registers will operate. However, having reflected on the high level of interest expressed over the course of these debates and the recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, we consider it right that Parliament and the Senate have the opportunity to scrutinise changes to the operation of the registration system. Finally, turning to amendments 164, a 175 Z and two 254 tabled by the noble Lord Lord Wei, which seek to remove clause 32 and 36 and schedule two from the Bill.

My Lords, much has been said during committee about clause 32. Children not in school registers the accompanying duties on parents and providers, and the duty for local authorities to provide support and why it is needed urgently. Therefore, in the interests of time, I will not state the full case again. Clause 32 and schedule two are also vital for the operation of the school attendance order process. I hope I have addressed the concerns raised by noble Lords in this group, and that the noble Lady Benjamin will withdraw her amendment.
20:02
Baroness Benjamin Portrait Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I am overjoyed. I'm so happy for the child performance of today and the future, because we're breaking down barriers that might prevent them from having an exciting experience in the creative industry. So I thank the Minister for partially accepting my amendments. Most grateful for that. And once again, I'd like to thank her and her team for the hard work which has gone on behind the scenes. First to get to this point. And once again, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for his support and for giving us an insight about his career.

It was really interesting to hear that from you. I'd like to take the opportunity to thank the Minister for her clear commitment to reviewing the regulations that govern child performing, both in this country and abroad. I know the creative industry are a source of great pride to our country, but at the very heart, they must be the well-being of the children who contribute so much to their success and therefore grateful for the many for recognising this and that. The exciting framework that we must keep in pace with the realities of the modern world that we live in, that's so important that we do that for our children.

And I'm particularly I particularly welcome the Minister's assurance that the review will be undertaken in close collaboration with the industry colleagues and those with front line experience. That is so important that we listen to what they're saying. They are at the forefront of what's going on in children's lives. Who are child performers? Working together this way is essential as we if we are to strike the right balance, enabling opportunity and creativity while ensuring robust safeguards that protect children's welfare, education and long term prospects are happening.

I look forward to continuing working with the Minister and her officials. The job's not done. There's a lot further to go. And so for that commitment and for the constructive spirit in which this work will be undertaken and move forward, I sincerely offer my gratitude and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg leave to withdraw the amendments in my name. Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn. Amendment amendment be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 1 to 8 move formally. Baroness Smith, the question is this amendment be the question is this amendment be agreed, as many of that opinion will say? Content contrary not content. The contents habit content. The contents habit amendment 1 to 9 Baroness Benjamin not moved. Amendment 130 Baroness not moved. Amendment 130 Baroness Benjamin not moved.

Amendment 131 Baroness Wolf moved formally as an amendment to amendment 131. Amendment 131 a Baroness Barran.
20:05
20:06
20:07
None Portrait AMDT: 135A Lord Hacking (Labour)
-

My Lords, I will be speaking in this group on amendments one, three, this group on amendments one, three, four A and also on amendment 139 four A and also on amendment 139 and 140. But at this stage I should draw attention to your Lordships to the tabled amendment 135A by the noble Lady Baroness Barran and the noble Lord Lord Crisp in the very first part of that amendment, that Baroness Barran and Lord Crisp have tabled an amendment almost identical to my amendment 34134A but in the second part, which is a rather longer part of amendment 35135, which deals with the problem of excessive information being sought from homeschooling parents, that the noble Baroness of the noble Lord Lord Crisp deal with it much more extensively than I do in my amendments 139 and 140.

But it's on the same subject, my Lords, before I go to my amendment 134, I should like to acknowledge the good progress that has been made on homeschooling issues in the 3 or 4 years that have been involved in these issues. In your Lordships' House, there's been very good progress, a progress on the register, which is now to be called the Register and not in School Register, and that is to be most welcome. The noble Baroness may remember with the previous government's bill, that that I made it quite plain that I've always supported the institution of that register next to the recognition, my Lords now, of homeschooling should not be secret, and the local authority should know what home, what homeschooling is taking place.

Thirdly, the recognition of this is a very important recognition, which is very much come out now of the role of the local authority to assist school, home schooling parents. And this was very well covered in the second bullet point on page eight of my noble friend's letter of the 7th of January. And it's even been better covered by her excellent and helpful speech at the beginning of Group three. During our present deliberations in report. My Lords, this enables me.

I hope, to go on a strong basis to my amendment 134A previously amendment 135. Its purpose is to protect protect a homeschooling parent and child from an offending other parent. For example, a father who has perpetrated serious sexual acts on the child. Of course, they have now separated and are living in different abodes. Or another example to be protected from offending father who's perpetrated serious domestic violence in the home and so forth, so that this moves my amendment to prevent that parent, the offending parent, having knowledge of the address and whereabouts of the child.

And as your Lordship will understand that all parents who have faced the ordeals that I've just described place a tremendous importance, that their whereabouts and address should not be known. The need, my Lords, for this amendment was brought to my attention and to the attention of the noble Lords Lord Crisp and Frost, by a mother whose former husband had committed serious sexual acts on her son. This mother also attended a successful meeting last June with other homeschooling mothers, with the then responsible Minister, Stephen Morgan.

It was a very successful meeting and we thought we made very good progress at it. My Lords, it's beyond our understanding how any father could seek to perpetrate sexual acts on his own children, boys or girls, and some as young as four years old. And it's certainly beyond my understanding. But I have to tell you a Lordships it does happen, and I have to suggest it happens more frequently that we know about prosecuting authorities, for example, are in a difficult position and have extreme reluctance to prosecute when when reliance has to be played on a small child's evidence.

This amendment, therefore, is not just based on one mother's concern, but but on a universal concern. I suggest for all school, having school, homeschooling mothers who are now separated from offending father, and what that separation to be kept complete. The problem is, my Lords, that as drafted the requirements on page 56 of the bill is a requirement for the name and address of both parents to be in the register. This, of course, my Lords, includes the offending father and hence my amendment is to change that wide allowance to for parents to be on in the register if they are taking.

And this is from the words of my amendment, taking responsibility for the education of the child. I'm told that in the helpful discussions I've had, and I thank my noble friend for enabling them with her officials, I'm told that the belief, in fact, that's wrong. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will correct me that that the belief that that the offending parent and the description I've given won't have access to the register. I have to say, this can't be right.

All persons named in a register must have the right to access that register, to access that register, for example, just to check whether the name is correct, whether the address is correct. And of course, once the offending father has access to the register, he has access to the address and whereabouts of both the mother and whereabouts of both the mother and the child, and. So that is why I extremely concerned on behalf of all homeschooling mothers who are in a similar situation, that they should be properly protected.

However, even if my argument is wrong about the access by the offending parent to the register, I have to say that I think I've taken a sensible position that the only parent who should be on the register are the parents taking responsibility for the education of the child or children, the other parents, if they're not doing that, they have no right to be there. And if one thinks a little further that the there is, then the requirement in the bill for all of those parents that are registered in the bill to provide ongoing information, the parent who is not involved in the responsibility of the unification of the child is in an extremely odd position, having to require having to provide information about which he and it's nearly always a he and knows nothing about my Lords.

There is. I suggest, therefore, no problem in the amendment that I've given, even if my argument of exposure is not right, my Lord. I then moved to my other two amendments, and that's amendments one, three nine and 140. There's no provision as such in the bill on what information the the local authority needs at primary school level. And the one might expect that the local authority needs to to check whether, for example, Jim Carnahan was refers it to the three R's arithmetic, reading and writing.

And when we get my nods to secondary level, the local authority may well be wanting information of whether English language and literature is short, well advanced maths are taught, whether all the appropriate sciences are taught, including computer sciences. But Lords, the local authority, certainly will not need to know about, for example, Sunday school. For another example, evening music lessons. For a third example, we can put lessons. But the trouble is, my Lord, in the bill as drafted, the.

That information is included in the requirements of the of the bill. And having carefully looked at amendment 138, this doesn't my my my my my noble friends, my friends. Amendment 138 this doesn't cover this issue. So that I very much hope that that the the my noble friend will will be favourable towards my amendment or indeed amendment one. Three. Five. Of Baroness Burt. So the information, my Lord. That the local authority has to bring into account on pages 58 to 66 are to be removed.

That's the the terms of amendment one three, five. I don't quarrel with that. I just think that my amendment is simpler and better for application. Above all, my Lords, my amendment accords with the words of my noble friend, the Minister, when she wrote in her letter of the 7th of January and she said this, it's important to ensure a proportional approach, providing local authorities with the information they need without placing unnecessary burdens on parents. I suggest my amendments achieves that.

Regrettably, I have to suggest present Bill the present

**** Possible New Speaker ****

drafting the bill doesn't. Does the noble Lord wish to move his amendment?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

his amendment? I do. I beg to move. Amendment. Amendment proposed in clause 32,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed in clause 32, page 58. Leave out line 17 to 19 and insert the words as printed in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Marshalled List. My Lords, I beg to move. Amendment 148 and I shall speak to
20:20
Lord Wei Portrait Lord Wei (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment 148 and I shall speak to other amendments in my name. In the scrutiny only amendments 148B1483148E1538155A, 161D and 174A together the concerned with one question how information about children and families is collected, used, retained and acted upon under this Bill. And again I begin by recognising that the government has shown restraint when Ministers have strengthened scrutiny, tightened procedures, limited the scope for open ended regulation making deserves acknowledgement. My own amendments in this group are animated by a single concern.

If Parliament is minded to create a register at all, then it must be tightly bounded, purpose limited and structured so it does not normalise suspicion or routine burden and data sought must be proportionate to serving a legitimate aim and narrowly tailored. It must not indirectly discriminate or unduly burden parents who choose to home educate when compared to children attending recognised schools. And I begin with amendment 148 and 148A and 148B, which concern data use and data governance. The true risk of a register lies not only in what it collects, but in what information, in what that information becomes over time.

Data, once shared rarely contracts. Once repurposed, it rarely remains confined to its original purpose. We're collecting quite a lot of data here on quite a lot of very sensitive matters, and some have argued this is really a kind of digital ID by the back door, which I don't think much of our citizens are very enamoured with right now. Amendment 148A draws a clear statutory boundary, provides that information may be shared only when necessary and proportionate for the educational welfare of the individual child, and it must not be repurposed for population level profiling, predictive modelling, automated risk scoring, or speculative secondary uses.

This is not hostility to safeguarding, it's respect for trust. Safeguarding will collapse when families believe that information given for one reason will be later used for another. Amendment 148B complements this by making explicit that all regulations governing the register must comply with data protection law, and by requiring consultation with the Information Commissioner and representatives of affected family before regulations are made. This is not decorative, it's constitutional. When people can't foresee how their data will be used, trust dissolves.

I turn to amendment 148D, which introduces a deletion rule. Information must be removed after five years or earlier where the child is no longer within scope, unless there are recorded safeguarding grounds for retention. Childhood isn't a permanent status, and our legal architecture should reflect that permanent records create permanent consequences. This amendment prevents the register from becoming a life history file for families who've done nothing wrong, while preserving the ability to retain data where there is a genuine and ongoing safeguarding justification.

Amendment 148E is equally important. It places into statute the principle that Ministers must have already articulated have in words, namely that education otherwise. In fact, Ministers articulated that today, namely that education otherwise done at school is lawful and must not of itself be treated as a reasonable cause to suspect harm or educational failure. And I know there was a reassurance about this principle that home education is a legitimate. But much of the legislation, much of what we've seen in this bill, really doesn't seem to suggest that that belief is held tightly by those who drafted it.

Presumptions are powerful. Once a category is treated as suspicious, every interaction becomes shaped by that assumption. This amendment ensures that the burden of justification remains where it belongs with the state. I now turn to amendments 153A and 155A, which address burden and frequency. Amendment 153A would place a clear ceiling on routine requests for meetings, information or home access no more than once in any 12 month period, unless there's reasonable cause to suspect significant harm, in which case more frequent engagement remains possible but is still bounded.

It makes clear that a parent's failure to comply with a routine request must not of itself, be treated as evidence of unsuitable education, and that a parents noticed. Home educate takes legal effect when given. This is about temporal proportionality. Frequency isn't neutral. Repetition changes the character of a relationship. Rolling engagement becomes rolling. Surveillance amendment 155A complements this by requiring that information demands must be reasonably required, proportionate, proportionate, and not of such volume or frequency that they materially damage the child's education by diverting parental time and resources away from teaching.

This is a real risk oversight that crowds out education defeats its own purpose. I've also tabled amendment 161D, which requires written reasons for decisions, provides families with a right to correct factual inaccuracies in the register. Large systems generate errors. If we're going to create records that shape how families are treated, then those records must be contestable and correctable. I further support the proposed cyber Security Amendments 172 and 2247A, which would prevent these provisions from being commenced until I think Lord Lucas made a great point in committee about reviewing the cyber security risks around storing all of this data, which is so important given we even recently had a breach of government data.

And I should be clear about what I can't support. I can't support approaches that normalise routine monitoring or turn lawful difference into a reason for scrutiny. Nor can I support amendments that increase admin burdens on families by default, rather than response to evidence of harm. My Lords, the question before us is not whether the state may act where there is evidence of risk, it must. The question is, what kind of system are we going to build? Is it going to be targeted, proportionate, trusted, or one that drifts into routine suspicion and routine intrusion? I commend these amendments to the House.
20:26
Lord Crisp Portrait Lord Crisp (Crossbench)
-
-
I want to speak to to amendment 135A in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Barran and myself. Before doing so, can I just once again thank the noble Lady, the Minister, for having reduced the requirements in this section considerably. Very pleased to not have to comment on whether scouts or rugby clubs, or indeed cricket clubs or anything were included, and also to get rid of the 15 day requirement to report it. So that is, those are significant improvements.

May I say, in terms of process, I would just also just pick up on one point, which I raised earlier, so I won't be any length on it, but how this process of putting data information on the register fits in with the annual reporting process that happens in an awful lot of authorities. That may be a local issue rather than a national one, but I'd be interested to hear the noble Lady's response on that. So turning to this amendment from Baroness Barran, I think a number of things that it is largely the same as as heading in the same direction as that by the noble Lord Lord Hacking.

I think it is proportionate. I think it is important that the second half of it makes clear that nothing prevents a local authority from requesting further information, where the authority has reasonable cause to believe that a child may not be receiving a suitable education. In other words, it's a two step process, so one doesn't automatically assume that the that the parents are guilty, as it were, within that, that it is a two step process. Before you ask for more information, I would also just draw out one point that that again, the noble Lord Lord Hacking has made, which is that the the absent spouse, not not all parents need to be asked about this need to be recorded on the register.

Only those that are taking responsibility for the education of the child. And I think that is entirely in keeping with where we are currently in that. If a parent to to withdraw a child from registration to school, you only need one parent's signature. And it seems to me that in putting them onto the register in this way, you only need those parents who are taking responsibility. It's not. It's not necessarily to involve other parents, including those who may be a danger to the other parent or to the child themselves.

So I simply make those points. Can I just turn to the noble Lord? Lord ways? Various amendments around the security of the use of information. I have a lot of sympathy for these, not least because I believe I'm writing saying we're not talking about one register, are we? We're talking about 150. This isn't a national register. This is 150 registers. And what chance do we think that somewhere in those 150 problems will occur in terms of security, in terms of access, people getting access and so on.

So I think these are very real concerns. And again, I would be very interested to hear what the noble Lady, the Minister says about the various amendments. The noble Lord Wei has tabled. I'll echo what
20:29
20:31
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
I my amendments in this group >> I my amendments in this group pull in two slightly different directions. So if the Minister and her officials are confused, I her officials are confused, I apologise. But I'll try and explain why. The main thrust of my amendments is, as the noble Lord Lord Crisp and the noble Lord Lord Hacking, both said, is to try and simplify the amount of specific detail that is required to be held on the register in future.

And I too very much welcome the government's decision to simplify. A lot of the information that was in the original draft of the bill, and to leave a bit more room for professional curiosity on the part of the home education team in the local authority. So my amendments 135 A and 135 B and 146 A all point in this direction and give the government different options to pick and mix menu. To achieve this end. And then 146 B makes it clear that a local authority can request further information where they believe a child might not be receiving a suitable education, or their welfare may be at risk, but in the other direction is my amendment 143 B and I hope that the noble Baroness can address this specifically when she comes to sum up.

So this would be a duty to record information in relation to care proceedings. And I think that's missing from the current list. But the noble Lady will tell me if I'm right or wrong on that, but not just for the child but also for their siblings. So we're all aware of cases where siblings or half siblings are in care proceedings. Perhaps if their babies are under five, but an older child might not be, and it feels highly relevant if a child's going to be taken out of school, that the local authority has that level of concern about other children in the family.

So I hope that the noble Lady will feel she can accept that and perhaps bring back an amendment Reading. Reading.
20:33
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Minister for Women and Equalities) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. Can I first of all, in in relation to Group five, as, as noble Lords have noted, these these amendments are all about how we reduce the burden on parents of providing information for children not in school registers, whilst maintaining the purpose of those registers. As I said in the previous group, I have taken seriously noble Lords views that the provisions as drafted in the Bill were too onerous for parents. At the same time, it is important to remember that the system we are proposing is still incredibly light touch relative to what is mandated in many other countries.

Turning to the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Hacking 134, A1391 40 and 141. An amendments 135. A and 135B tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Barran. These would remove certain information requirements or replace them with more limited alternatives. It is essential that local authorities have the information that they need to assess whether a child's education is suitable and full time. I fully appreciate the intention behind these amendments, but reducing the scope of information would, in practice, make those assessments significantly harder.

It is also vital that safeguarding information and other relevant information on registers is recorded consistently. Recent safeguarding and serious case reviews have shown how often opportunities to identify children suffering or at risk of significant harm are missed. When information is fragmented or incomplete. However, I hope I could provide some reassurance to the noble Lord Lord Hacking about the access for parents in the sorts of circumstances that he identified. There are no powers for parents to access information on their children, and we have thought this through very carefully, particularly from the perspective of victims of domestic abuse and other forms of abuse.

For example, we have considered whether the estranged parent could make a subject access request to acquire information. Local authorities are strictly required to have clear and well defined processes to help staff handle such requests safely and lawfully, and we do not believe, therefore, that the the fear that the noble Lord outlined, which is quite understandable. Fear could legally exist. I hope that could provide some reassurance on the detail. Amendments 134A and 135 would require only the names and home addresses of the parents directly providing the education.

Yet, as I said in Committee section seven of the Education Act 1996 places the duty of securing a suitable education on all parents. If these amendments were accepted, we could face situations where no parent is recorded at all, making it harder for local authorities to identify and support children missing education amendment 135 also limits information for inclusion to the primary type of education. While amendment 139 requires information on other providers only where they deliver the child's principal education.

In practice, this this wouldn't work because where education is from multiple sources, for example a parent and a tutor, there's no clear way of determining which which is primary amendments one, 35B140 and 141 would remove the requirement to record time spent in education and information concerning education received from those other than the parents. Yet this information may be precisely what allows local authorities to understand a child's overall educational picture. If, for instance, a child spends substantial time with a provider offering a very narrow curriculum, the authority must check that they're receiving a balanced education elsewhere as a core part of assessing suitability.

Turning to amendment 146 be tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Barran, which alongside amendment 135, seeks to clarify when further information may be requested. While I appreciate the noble Ladies intention, it would mean that the local authority may only request further information where it has reasonable cause to believe a child may not be receiving suitable education, or their welfare may be at risk. Yet the purpose of the registers is to cover all children not in school, and gather the information that enables authorities to form those very judgements.

So this might be the information being sought, might be exactly the information needed to make that judgement. But perhaps at this point I could also respond to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord crisp, in the group before last. First of all, on the point about annual reports, the high level information required for registers is not intended to replace the more detailed, informal inquiries that local authorities undertake. What the noble Lord refers to as the annual reporting system.

These are what local authorities undertake to understand. Whether a child is receiving a suitable education. Should the amendment be accepted. Regulations. That's the amendment from the previous group. Regulations could outline how the updates could be requested, and statutory guidance would set out how these processes should align. And then on the point about whether or not parents could parents ignore the annual request for meetings? If the meeting has already happened, we will expect local authorities to adapt their systems in line with the new legislation.

If there is recently been a meeting and the local authority is satisfied that education is suitable, we wouldn't expect them to request another soon afterwards and we will put this into statutory guidance. Turning to amendments 153A and 155A, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Wei. These would limit requests from local authorities for information, meetings or home visits and prevent non-compliance being used as evidence of unsuitable education. My Lords, the extensive package of amendments to reduce the frequency of updates required from parents, which I will come to shortly, will address many of the noble Lords concerns.

His amendments also restrict home visits and meetings when some parents welcome them as the easiest way to provide information, and the suggestion that de-registration from school could be blocked by requiring a meeting is also misplaced. Children covered by sections four, three, six, B to four, three, six G are already out of school, and if home educated, already off the school roll. Lastly, the amendments would give the Secretary of State new powers to penalise local authorities for breaching these limits. However, local authorities must already follow the law.

The Education Act 1996 gives the Secretary of State sufficient powers to intervene when a local authority fails to comply. Amendment one 480, also tabled by the noble Lord Lord way, would prevent information on the registers being used to judge whether a child is at risk of harm or not receiving a suitable education, but local authorities must be able to use information on registers to make those assessments. Where information on registers indicates a child may not be suitably educated, or that safeguarding concerns exist and any informal enquiries have not resolved matters.

Authorities have a duty to act. Turning to amendment 146, a table by the noble Lady Baroness Barran. This would prevent the government prescribing additional categories of information for recording in future, even when necessary, to improve understanding of this cohort, inform local and national policy or better target support, including, for example, information on exam entries or outcomes for home educated children about which many noble Lords have expressed interest. Indeed, the noble Baroness Mone amendment 143B shows the value of being able to add future categories, namely the details of care and supervision order applications where we can see the logic of the noble Baroness Carr argument.

And we would of course be happy to consider prescribing this information when developing regulations, and we will publicly consult on this. Turning to amendments 148A, 148B and 148D tabled by the noble Lord Lord Wei concerning the protection and retention of data on the registers. While I appreciate the concern for the protection of children's data, which I of course share, these amendments are unnecessary. The registers will be required to comply with all applicable data protection legislation, which require data not to be kept longer than necessary.

Furthermore, entries on registers will be deleted once a child ceases to be within scope. On amendment 174. Tabled by the noble Lord Lord Wei. This would remove clause 34. My Lords, clause 34 enables information to be disclosed when required or authorised by the children not in school measures, without it breaching any obligation of confidence. This is important for local authorities to fulfil their duties, including sharing information where it promotes or safeguards a child's education or welfare. The Department continues to engage with the Information Commissioner's Office to identify and to mitigate any data sharing risks on the noble Lord.

Lord Wei amendments one, 728 and 2478 requiring the National Cyber Security Centre to certify and test the security arrangements for registers before implementation. As I said in committee, this is unnecessary. Local authorities are already expected to comply with cyber security standards, which are an integral part of their wider data protection obligations. There will also not be a single National register, but over 150 local registers across England and Wales. The local the National Cyber Security Centre's role is advisory, not regulatory, so requiring it to test and certify each register would not only inappropriately widen their remit, it would be a colossal resource demand and unnecessarily delay implementation of these much needed registers.

Finally, amendment 161, also tabled by the noble Lord Lord Wei, would require local authorities to give written reasons for all decisions relating to the registers and to offer parents opportunities to correct inaccuracies. Local authorities will exercise discretion across a range of decisions, from adding information to the registers, to seeking further details from education providers or determining what support to offer. It would be inappropriate to require written reasons in every case, particularly where safeguarding is involved. However, for support duty decisions, we will make clear in statutory guidance that written reasons should be provided.

As for correcting factual errors, UK GDPR already gives parents the right to have inaccurate, inaccurate data rectified. Turning now to the comprehensive package of package of Government amendments, which I am pleased to hear from noble Lords, I think will have addressed some of the concerns previously raised and, I believe, address some of the concerns raised today. First of all, we have reflected on concerns raised about potential burdens relating to the provision of information on education providers. Whilst it remains important, registers record information on education provided by those other than parents.

We agree this should be limited to what is necessary and government amendments 138 and 148 mean parents need only give information on other persons or organisations where they educate the child for more than a prescribed amount of time. We will set out at that time in regulation, subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure, and we would intend to align it, align it with the threshold attached to the duty on providers to supply information. Amendments 138 and 148 would ensure parents, in the circumstances where home educated children may attend many providers for short periods of time which change regularly, are not overburdened by having to provide information on every provider, whilst still ensuring that local authorities have information on individuals and organisations providing a significant proportion of the child's education.

Amendment 138 further streamlines requirements by limiting the information that parents must provide to a provider's name and address, avoiding the collection of unnecessary personal data. And amendment 170 is consequential to amendments 138 and 148. On the issue of time estimates. Turning turning to government amendments 136137142143 and 147, which would make it possible for parents to give estimates of time spent in education for the registers rather than exact times. It's essential for local authorities to have high level information on the child's time spent being educated, and who is providing education during that time, but we recognise providing exact information on the time spent in home education is not simple.

In practice, arrangements can be fluid, varying week by week or changing at short notice, and these amendments would enable parents to give estimates that may account for these types of situations and therefore could greatly reduce the number of updates that some parents would otherwise need to provide to local authorities. Amendment 147 assures that regulations can be used to describe how time estimates are to be calculated. Amendments 149150153 and 152 amend the time frames by which parents are required to give updates for the registers.

And I've in the in the service of not going on too long. I believe from comments that noble Lords have already made that those are welcomed. Amendment 151 tabled in my name would further streamline requirements by ensuring parents are not required to inform the local authority when their child is no longer of compulsory school age. Since local authorities will have the child's date of birth amendment, government Amendment 166 would remove the power for a local authority to issue a preliminary notice for a school attendance order.

If a parent has failed to report that their child is no longer eligible for registration. Finally, turning to government amendments 155 and 154, which clarify that parents are not required to provide information for the registers if their child is receiving full time education arranged by a school or local authority. Children in these circumstances may be eligible for registration, but local authorities will already hold this information and can record it on their registers without having to burden the parent. I hope that these amendments will demonstrate that we have listened carefully to concerns raised by noble Lords during previous debates, and that we have acted to reduce burdens of compliance with the registration duty, whilst ensuring registers contain the information necessary for local authorities to meet their education and safeguarding duties.

And on that basis, and on the basis of the reassurance I provided on the other amendments, I hope noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
20:49
Lord Hacking Portrait Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
-
I begin by thanking my noble friend, the Minister, that she and her officials have very clearly thought very carefully about the provisions of this bill, and they've come to some conclusions. My difficulty by Lords is that I think they've come to the wrong conclusions, and I would therefore be very grateful, and I will be withdrawing my amendment if by noble friend and her officials could look carefully at what I argued relating to my two sets of amendments, and and if there is any way that they can find to accommodate my concerns, I would be very grateful, my Lord.

The central point is that what I have been proposing on both sets of lineman was a safe way of doing it, and it must be the safe way of doing it. Changing the drafting on page 58 from the home address of each parent of the child, to change that to each parent or parents who have responsibility for the education. That's the safe way of dealing with that. And likewise that relating to the amount of information that is being sought from school, school, homeschooling parents.

Then my amendment, I have to suggest, is the safe way of doing it. And surely, therefore, my Lords, and this is what I'm asking the Minister to do with her officials, is to look at the safe way relating to both amendments. But having said

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that, my Lords, I withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure? This amendment is withdrawn. This amendment is withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 135A Baroness Barran MAT Amendment 135A Baroness Barran MAT moved. Amendment 135B Baroness Barran not moved. Amendments 136 and 137 Baroness Miller moved formally. En bloc. The question is formally. En bloc. The question is these amendments be agreed to? As many of that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The not contents have it amendment 138 Baroness May moved formally.

The question is that amendment amendment 138 be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content contrary, not content. The contents have it that amendment pre-empts amendments 139 and 140. So I will not call them amendment 141 Lord Hacking not moved. Amendment 142 and 143 Baroness Miller moved En bloc. The question is that these amendments be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content contrary, not content, the contents have it. Amendment 143 B Baroness Barran not moved.

We now come to Group six, amendment 144. In clause 32. Baroness Smith.
20:52
None Portrait AMDT: 144 Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-

I rise to speak to the government amendments in Group six, which seek to strengthen the support and engagement which local authorities offer to families who wish to home educate. My Lords, as the as my noble friend, the Minister said during committee, it is vital that local authorities build constructive relationships with parents. Such relationships are the most effective way for local authorities to understand a child's education and circumstances, and to identify any support families may want or require.

The Department for education is committed to fostering these partnerships wherever possible. I beg to move Government Amendment 144, which would amend section 46 to J to remove the specific reference to institutions in the further education sector. This would ensure the department can require local authorities via regulations, to record information about any education institution a registered child is attending or has attended in the past, where the local authority has the information or can reasonably obtain it. Such information could be beneficial to include on registered registers, because a history of establishments attended will give local authorities a clearer idea of the child's circumstances in their educational history.

This understanding will enable the local authority to offer and provide more bespoke support to the child. For those parents that feel forced into home education, a record of previous schools attended would also give the local authority insight into which settings parents were dissatisfied with. Further analysis of this information could reveal where there where there may be gaps in support for parents within the school system, enabling the local authority or central government to take action around this.

Turning to Government Amendment 146, which would make clear that information on young carers may be prescribed for inclusion in children, not in school registers. I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord young, particularly, for raising this important matter during committee and to the Carers Trust for their tireless work in ensuring that young carers are identified and supported. As my noble friend, the Minister said previously in committee, knowing whether a child is a young carer provides important context for an elective home education officer, both in assessing whether the child is receiving a full time suitable education and in ensuring that the family is signposted to any relevant support to which they are entitled.

Prescribing this information for inclusive on the children not in school registers would ensure that local authorities must record it if they can, reasonably, if they can reasonably obtain it. Turning to Government Amendment 158, my Lords, the department's guidance is clear that when a parent elects to home educate, they must be prepared to take full responsibility for their child's education. This includes making arrangements for access to exams that the child may wish to take. However, local authorities should be sources of advice for home educating families.

That is why we have tabled amendment 158, which would make clear that local authorities must give advice and information about access to GCSE exams if requested by a parent of a home educated child registered on their children not in school registers. This advice could include signposting to local centres that may be open to taking private candidates, providing information on how to enter GCSEs as a private candidate, signing posts, signposting to the Joint Council for qualifications. List of exam centres who accept private candidates, as well as organisations that provide guidance on exams or careers, such as Ofqual or the National Careers Service.

At a national level, the Department for education will send communications to schools, encouraging them to take private candidates and to join the list of centres held by the Jcrc. And we will engage with Jcrc to explore options for updating this list earlier in the year, ensuring that families have timely access to accurate information to support their planning. Turning to Government Amendment 159, which would would, as part of their support duty, require local authorities to hold forums with home educating parents twice a year if there is an appetite from parents for them to do so, these forums would be an opportunity for the community to provide feedback and to ask questions to the local authority as to how the registers support duty and school attendance order process are operating.

In turn, the forums would provide local authorities with a better understanding of the needs and views of home educating families in their areas, laying the foundation for more constructive relationships. Turning to Government Amendment 161, which would ensure that the duty on local authorities to offer a biannual engagement forum is targeted specifically to home educated parents. This would ensure the forums remain focussed on their core purpose. We know that some parents whose children are on school roll, or whose education is arranged by the local authority, may also want the opportunity to speak directly with the representative from the local authority.

However, where the issues relate to other duties such as those under section 19 of the Education Act 1996, those discussions are often highly technical or specific to an individual case. Such matters would not be well suited to an open forum of this kind, and so those parents would be better supported through the existing routes of communication already available to them. My Lords, I beg to move.
20:59
Lord Crisp Portrait Lord Crisp (Crossbench)
-
-
Amendment proposed. Amendment >> Amendment proposed. Amendment 144. And clause 32, page 59. Line 144. And clause 32, page 59. Line 41. Leave out within the further 41. Leave out within the further education sector. My Lords, I rise to speak to my amendment 160 but let me also just start, as I did for the last grouping, to say that I'm grateful to the noble Lady, the Minister and colleagues for having done some, having moved in some way on the information provided about exams and also setting up a forum.

And it will be interesting to see how the forum operates. I have to say, I'm also very sympathetic to the noble Lord. Lord Wade's Amendment 161 A, where he talks about setting up a proper forum with where you're actually asking the where he is actually asking the parents to take some responsibility for the relationship. That seems to me to be quite a positive way forward and maybe a longer term way forward, but let me talk about them. The my amendment 160 on exams.

And I did hear what the noble Lady, the Minister said in her introductory remarks that she is obviously not minded to support this amendment. However, I'm going to make the arguments for it because I think they're pretty compelling. Really. This is, if you ask about support, this is the biggest issue that home educating parents talk about. It's the biggest single issue. And it's not so much the money. It's actually access to the exams. And if you think that, you know, and what I'm asking for in this amendment is firstly that the local authority provides access, enables their.

Local children to have access to exam centres within a reasonable area, and that the local authority should also pay the access fee. The parent will pay the individual fee, the exam board fee. But if you go to a private centre, the exam board fee may be about £50 and the sorry, the exam board fee is about £50, but the centre may charge another 2 or £300 on a private centre. And we're looking at that sort of level of support. This is very modest.

It should be recognised that actually this is getting much harder. During Covid, a lot of independent schools stopped providing access for private people to come and be, come and be invigilated for their exams. And you hear lots and lots of stories of people having to travel two hours to get to an exam centre. And if you bear in mind that a maths GCSE, I'm told has got four, has got four papers, then this is a lot of travel that you would need to actually do.

It is also the biggest group that we're talking here of home educated people. The the biggest group of children is in those last three years of compulsory education, there are something like 40,000 children in that grouping and much less younger ages. So this is a really important issue. It's an important issue for all of us because actually we do want children in our country to get access to. We do want them to succeed in getting GCSEs in maths and English. They are the passport to education further, but they're also passports for most employment.

These are really important issues that we're talking about here and it will make a lot of difference in people's lives. One of the points that home educating parents always make to me on this topic is that the public purse is saving £7,000 per home educated child. If you multiply that up by 100,000 or so, you don't get far off £750 million. In other words, at least £5 million per authority. And all this would ask would be asking for a total contribution of something of the order of 2 or £3 million across the country as a whole.

So financially, this is peanuts. I understand the point that the noble Lady is making that if people have decided they're going to home educate well, they've just got to get on with it by themselves. But actually, I think this is one of those areas where it would be extremely sensible for the public purse to to pay some attention to this, to help these young people get the exams that they need to do. And I say that knowing that the noble Lord Lord Storey has made this argument in the past, and I suspect will will support this argument as we go further, so I do.

Say to the noble Lady, the Minister, that, you know, there is time for further reflection on this, and if in some future point this were something that the government was minded to do, it would be something that would build relationships with home, educating people, engaging parents and children more strongly almost than anything else.
21:04
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I, I Lords, I rise, first of all, to thank on behalf of the noble Lord Lord Young of Cookham and myself, the government for bringing forward amendment 146, putting carers actually on on the register we heard some quite sort of moving testimony at Committee stage about some incredibly young carers aged eight or 9 or 10, looking after several members of their family, siblings and parents and in some cases apparently being home educated. But from the point of view of the people that they were caring for, the adults looking after them took priority actually over the home education.

And that is why it is so important and so helpful that they will actually be recorded. So thank you very much indeed for that. I also rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Lord Crisp and also in fact, Lord Wei amendment 175ZC, which is along the same lines, which is for children who are being home educated to actually as they come to the sort of final parts of their home education and hopefully will pass and and take exams.

There is a real postcode lottery at the moment, particularly post-Covid, in access to examination centres. So in parts of the country like Cornwall or in large parts of the north of England, it is extraordinarily difficult for parents to access examination centres for their children. In some cases, they're having to travel one and a half to three hours to actually go to the examination centres. And in many cases you're not taking a single paper. You might be taking 3 or 4 papers for mathematics.

So you have to go backwards and forwards and backwards and forwards. When you add to that, the fact that some of these children will have, you know, some, some, some challenging behaviours, they may find indeed being in an examination centre environment is, is is not an environment that they're entirely comfortable in having it, you know, within reasonable reach and access of of where one lives is, is exceptionally important for for those reasons, I do hope that the the noble Lady, the Minister will think carefully about this, perhaps look at some of the the actual facts and figures about this.

I think the the charity education otherwise has looked into this in great detail and has a lot of really quite useful and compelling inflammation, which I hope if the if the department is prepared to look at that, it might be able to think again.
21:07
Lord Wei Portrait Lord Wei (Conservative)
-
-
I was I beg to move amendment 161A and I shall also speak to amendments 1750175ZB and 175ZC in my name. These amendments sit in a part of the bill that will be felt most sharply, not in Whitehall, but in kitchens and living rooms, by parents doing their best for children whose needs do not fit neatly in the school system. When Parliament reaches into family life, it has to do so with care, because it's easy to create a framework that looks reasonable on paper and yet breeds mistrust in practice.

And again, I want to acknowledge at the outset the government's movement in this group, amendment G158 or amendment 158 recognises the reality exam access and ensures that information about GCSE routes can be provided to parents who ask for it. Amendment 159 creates a regular forum for parents to raise concerns and discuss how this regime operates, and 161 tidies the drafting around exam related provisions. These are sensible steps. They start to show an understanding that families need information and a channel of engagement, and I welcome them.

Yet there remains a gap between permission and protection. Information may be offered, but access can still fail. As we've heard from Lord Crisp and others. A forum may be held, but families can still feel unheard when nothing changes. These amendments in my name aim to close that gap with light touch safeguards that strengthen legitimacy and reduce conflict. And, you know, I will say the government, having shown that it is listening, I think many of us would hope that on these I feel quite non-contentious amendments that the government will also come back with suggested changes in the bill, as well as afterwards, the statutory guidance to understand these kind of these, these realities.

And amendment 161 requires each local authority to establish a home Education Parental Advisory Board, primarily composed of parents of recent experience of elective home education in the area. We're not trying to create new bureaucracy for its own sake. It's about a practical feedback loop. The families most affected by these powers are often those most able to spot unintended consequences early, better than we can in this environment. And when policy is made without their input, misunderstanding becomes routine and routine misunderstanding can become the culture of the system.

Advisory boards keep local authorities grounded in reality. They create discipline around reasoning, and when authority departs from a formal recommendation, my amendment suggests it needs to explain why that simple requirement can improve decision making and build trust. I want to express strong support for amendment 160 in the name of Lord Lord Crisp, and it does address a long standing injustice that the House should not tolerate any longer. Home educated children face serious obstacles in accessing examinations. Parents are left to navigate a patchwork of centres, fees, refusals, capacity limits and inconsistent arrangements.

This is not just sort of in small cases. It's in many instances qualification does open doors. Access is important. We mustn't make the children pay the price. My own children, we had to travel several hundred miles to the south coast pretty much for all of their GCSEs, and you can imagine how many they did and how many you multiply that and how many hotels stays that that meant for my my dear wife who did most of the heavy lifting, although I did drive a few times myself.

My amendment 175 sec places a clear duty on local authorities to secure reasonable access to approved exam centres, sort of building on the thinking around 160, including adjustments for children with special education needs. It ensures the responsibility is not left just to goodwill or market convenience. And I think somebody mentioned, you know, that in the summer of last year, around 47,000 home educated children in England were in their exam years. And yet there are fewer than 200 centres listed as supporting them, many with limited capacity.

Uneven geographic coverage. Whether a child can access qualifications shouldn't depend on commercial viability or geography. We need to provide equitable access to this basic infrastructure as a responsibility of the state. Amendment 175 deals with the related harm that's already appearing. Some providers are withdrawing opportunities for home educated children in anticipation of new compliance burdens. Museums, activities, learning programmes, even basic services can become quietly harder to access, and that may not be the government's intention. But because you are talking about a higher level of scrutiny and information sharing and requirements, that's already, I think, causing people to hold back.

This amendment draws a clear statutory line against discrimination and against extra administrative hurdles imposed solely because a child is educated otherwise than at school. Law for educational choice shouldn't become a reason for exclusion. Finally, amendment 175 ZB addresses the people who will operate these powers. The government has well, which I welcome indicated that training will be provided to those in local authorities working with home educated families, and I welcome that. The House knows that guidance can be diluted over time, especially when you're under pressure and you have lots of families to look after.

With not much more funding. This amendment requires a national training standard to be issued covering elective home education and related SEND, lawful decision making, and the avoidance of unconscious bias when dealing with these families. These families deserve consistency. Officers deserve clarity. A system with serious powers needs competent hands. My Lord. Safeguarding works best when families cooperate and cooperation relies on trust. Trust is earned through fairness, understanding and clear routes for participation. These amendments strengthen these foundations and I hope the government will show goodwill towards the many home educating families that are going to have huge disruption to their lives in the coming years.

By really looking at these amendments and others today, especially those on on the on the area of access to exams, and I urge the House to support them.
21:13
21:14
21:16
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yes my Lord, we wished on these benches to support Lord Crisp amendment. This is a very important amendment. Look, it would be very easy to say, well, you know, you chose you chose to be home educated. So if you chose to be home educated, you go with the fees and everything involved. But we're talking about children here. We're talking about young people here. We're talking about their future and whether they're home educated or they're taught in a school, they deserve the best possible opportunities.

We started today's Report stage with Lord bird's amendment about targets and about children from in poverty, basically. And many of these children are home educated. They're not all from posh middle class situations. Many of them are from deprived communities, from working class communities, and they need support and need support in two ways. One is that need help in terms of access to an exam centres and doing the exams. And secondly, they do need some finance.

If we really want to start this new dawn of partnership and working together with local authorities and home educators, well, what a wonderful way to start that off by actually making a real positive gesture. The government all the time, quite rightly, talks about how it is important to give all young people, all children and young people, the opportunities. Talk about developing skills. Well, if they haven't got the opportunities because they haven't got the money or can't find the access to an exam, they're just wasted.

And actually, the final point that I've often thought is if all those children who were home educated, suddenly En bloc went back to school, it would cost the state hundreds of millions of pounds. So come on for a few a few pence, actually make a real gesture to these these families. That would be the start dawn.
21:18
21:19
Baroness Blake of Leeds Portrait Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
Can I thank noble Lords for their very considered comments, and particularly Lord Crisp for his bringing his experience into the chamber? And I would like to particularly thank him for the considerate way that he's approached this, and hopefully we will continue to have a constructive dialogue as we move forward on this, these important issues. So rising to speak to amendment 116, Group six, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Crisp and amendments 161 and 175 said, see table by the noble Lord Lord Wei.

These amendments seek to require local authorities to act supportively towards and establish advisory boards of home educating families, and seek to ensure that home educated children can access examinations. My Lord, as I said at the beginning of this group, local authorities should be sources of support for home educating families and the engagement of noble Lords has been constructive and I would like to reassure noble Lords that this will be further strengthened by the support duty in this Bill, which is the first ever duty on local authorities to provide support specifically for home educating families, as well as the government's amendments in this group, which clarify that information on GCSE, GCSE exam access should be provided as part of the support duty and require local authorities to arrange biannual engagement forums.

As we've already discussed, we also recognise the importance of ensuring that parents are responsible for bearing the cost of exams. They may enter their child before they make the decision to withdraw them from school. This is something that has already made clear in the department's elective home education guidance, and which we would not. We would expect to be discussed as part of the mandatory meetings. Pilots that my noble friend the Minister described earlier. Just to expand on this, whilst some of these things would seem to be straightforward, they are actually more involved than perhaps has been suggested.

So the question is why can't we require local authorities to find exam centres for all home educated students? Well, this would involve a local authority forcing a state school or college to accommodate a home educated pupil. We do not think this is right or appropriate. Exams, centres, schools, colleges and private institutions rightly take their own decisions on whether they can accept private candidates based on their individual circumstances, such as financial and administrative capacity and logistical logistical considerations. Schools and colleges have finite resources, and exams must be delivered in line with strict regulatory requirements, including desk spacing, appropriate invigilator to candidate ratios, and the secure administration of assessments to ensure they are conducted fairly and safely, whereas centre is able to accommodate a private candidate within these requirements, we fully encourage them to do so.

However, it would not be appropriate to require a centre to breach exam regulations or compromise the integrity of the assessment. For example, to require a school with a full exam hall to potentially exclude one of their own pupils to make space for a private candidate. Instead, we encourage arrangements to be based on an understanding of each of the exam centres, local circumstances and local relationships. However, the department will contact both state funded and independent schools and colleges to encourage them to accept private candidates and to to be included on the list of centres published by the JC as appropriate.

We will also work with JC to explore whether this list can be made available earlier in the year, so families have timely and accurate information to support their planning. Picking up on on the comments of Lord Russell as well. In addition, we will update our guidance to local authorities, encouraging them to provide clear and accessible information for home educating families at an early stage about the qualifications and exam centres in their area. This will help families to consider exam arrangements before starting a course of study.

Making informed choices about assessment options and avoid unnecessary travel where possible.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For for giving way. And and I do welcome this provision of information in a timely way for information in a timely way for families. And of course, I think I don't think, you know, I speak for myself, but peers here who have spoken about the need for exam access want to burden state schools or other schools that have or other schools that have completely full exam halls. But I wonder if maybe through a letter, wonder if maybe through a letter, we can have a further conversation with the department about as you gather that information, as local authorities discover what access there is in a local authority, if there literally isn't any at all for exams, could there not be some dialogue with the local schools not to force them to do anything they can't do, or can't afford to do, but to even just say, well, how many spare desks have you got in your exam halls, which they probably will be able to very quickly tell you, and those then that will allow some conversations to be happening about creating something in the area which, you know, may often be absent, as we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

found. Thank you for that intervention. I think this is exactly what we're I think this is exactly what we're we are proposing that there needs to be that dialogue to have a better understanding of what is better understanding of what is available locally and what isn't. And the noble Lord mentioned his own particular circumstance about own particular circumstance about having to travel a long distance. And perhaps if he'd been able to And perhaps if he'd been able to have a conversation about which exam boards operate in the particular local area where he lives, that might have made a difference.

And that is the situation particularly unique to to England in terms of the the offer from different exam boards, which obviously mean different syllabuses and actually have an impact. The earlier conversations that we're proposing hopefully will bring that out. And what we're saying is that we can't it's difficult to be too prescriptive at this point because of the of different circumstances in different localities. And it really is for those areas to to make clear what the the provision they're able to, to, to make.

In relation to amendment one, seven, five, z, c it's also important to highlight that the Equality Act 2010 already places a statutory duty on awarding organisations to provide reasonable adjustments for disabled students in exams and assessments. This applies to all learners, irrespective of whether they intend to attend a school or are home education. I hope that answers the the point that the noble Lord Lord Wei raised about the equalities. Turning to amendment 175, Z a tabled by the noble Lord Lord Wei, which seeks to ensure that home educated children and families are not unfairly disadvantaged or subjected to additional administrative and evidential requirements.

Of course, we agree that home educating families and children should not be unfairly disadvantaged. However, the reality is that many services are accessible to children through their school. When a family makes the choice to effectively home educate, they are opting out of this system. This is why our guidance is clear that parents should ensure that they are fully informed about home education before they enter into it. There are existing duties under equalities law to ensure that organisations do not discriminate, and our guidance is clear that any request for evidence must be proportionate.

Private businesses, such as many education providers and examination centres, must retain autonomy over their services, over who their services are available to, as long as they comply with the law. Turning to amendment 175, z b tabled by the noble Lord Lord Wei, seeking to require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the training of local authority officers on the children not in school measures. I am happy to reassure the noble Lord that we will be developing a training package package for local authorities focussed on their new duties.

This training will be co-developed with and co-delivered by home education representatives, and we will engage with relevant stakeholders, including our implementation forums and safeguarding and domestic abuse organisations on the materials to be included in this package. With these comments, I therefore hope the changes the government proposing have addressed noble Lords concerns. I thank the noble Earl of Effingham for his comments and explanation of the position that he's taking with those comments. I beg to move.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question 144 B agreed that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents have it. not content. The contents have it. Amendments 145 and 146 moved formally. Baroness Morris moved formally. The question is these amendments be agreed en bloc as amendments be agreed en bloc as many of that opinion will say, content contrary not content, the contents have it amendments 146 A contents have it amendments 146 A and B Baroness Barran not moved. and B Baroness Barran not moved.

Amendment 147 and 148 move formally Baroness Miller. The question is that these amendments be agreed En bloc as many of that opinion will say. Content contrary not content, the contents have it amendments the contents have it amendments 148A to E Lord Wei not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Come on. Amendments one four 9 to 1 five three move formally Baroness Miller question is these amendments be agreed en bloc as in that opinion agreed en bloc as in that opinion will say content contrary, not content The contents have it amendment 153A Lord Wei not moved. Amendments 154 and 155 move formally Baroness May question is formally Baroness May question is these amendments be agreed as many of that opinion will say content contrary, not content The contents have it 155A Lord Wei not moved.

Amendments one five 6 to 1 five seven Baroness Smith of Newnham formally question is these amendments be agreed en bloc as many that opinion will say content contrary, not content The contents have it amendment 157A Lord Wei not moved. Amendments one five 8 to 1 five nine Baroness Miller moved formally. Question is that these amendments be agreed en bloc as many that opinion will say content contrary, not content The contents have it amendment 160 Lord Crisp not moved.

Amendments 161 Baroness May moved formally. Question is that amendment 161 be agreed that will say content contrary, not content The contents have it amendments 161A to D Lord Wei not moved. Amendments one six 2 to 1 six four Baroness Smith of Newnham formally question is that these amendments be agreed en bloc as many that opinion say content contrary not content, the contents habit amendments 164A to C Lord Wei not moved question is amendments one six 5 to 1 six seven move formally question is that these amendments be agreed to en bloc as many of that opinion will say content contrary not content The contents have it amendment 167A Lord Wei not moved.

Amendments one six 9 to 170 Baroness Meyer moved formally. Question is that these amendments be agreed to en bloc as many of that opinion will say content contrary, not content The contents have it moments 170 A and B Lord Wei not moved. Amendment 172 Baroness Miller moved formally. Question is amendment 172B agreed that opinion will say content contrary, not content The contents have it amendment 172A Lord Wei not moved. Amendments 173 and 174 move formally Baroness Smith question is that these amendments be agreed to en bloc as many that will say content contrary not content.

The contents have it amendment 174A not moved amendment 175 Baroness Miller moved formally. Question is amendment 175B agreed say content contrary, not content The contents have it amendments 175ZA to f Lord have it amendments 175ZA to f Lord Wei not moved. Are 175A. The Lord Bishop of Manchester.
21:33
21:35
None Portrait AMDT: 175A The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)
-

anti-Semitic crimes is making some people I've known as long committed to Britain wonder whether they're still welcome, wonder whether they're still safe in the UK. New laws that threaten their long laws that threaten their long standing traditions simply play into that fear. Yet, my Lords, the Jewish community and I went to Jewish community and I went to school among Jewish boys. It's a precious and vital constituent of British life. I sincerely believe that we must make every possible effort we can to allay their fears.

In working on this amendment, I've become more than ever aware that there are different voices and different practices. Even among the ultra-Orthodox communities. I'm not pretending to speak for all of them. However, those I've met with have given me assurances. For example, they have no problem with the institutions that their boys attend being in scope for safeguarding, oversight and inspection. I'm also assured, and I know that the theology of these groups means that those who study their faith at a yeshiva, they're not being radicalised, they're not drawn to political extremism.

Indeed, the very opposite. They are a deeply law abiding community. Many I know who've come through this combination of homeschooling and religious instruction emerge as excellent citizens, well equipped to flourish in the British society and be entrepreneurs, business leaders, assets to our community. So I'm very grateful. Having said all that, for the conversations that I and colleagues, including the noble Lord Lucas, and it's good to see him looking fully recovered after his surgery before Christmas. The conversations that we've had with civil servants and Ministers since Committee stage, that has significantly cleared the ground and resolved quite a number of issues along the way.

Those conversations have explored considerable detail. Some of it was about what exactly when, when exactly? Boys are expected to attend a yeshiva during what would otherwise be normal. Monday to Friday school hours. Some of it has been about what precisely an institution that comes under the regime set out in this bill will be required to include in its teaching, in its work. I'm very grateful for the assurances we've received, for example, that there's no intention to require such bodies. We're not equipped for it to comply with the national curriculum.

Some of the groups I've met or corresponded with are concerned a concern that if a carve out is not on the face of the bill, then there are risks that secondary legislation will not provide sufficient assurance. They fear that some future Secretary of State would be free to make regulations that would effectively outlaw their way of life. I have listened carefully to those concerns. I understand their fears. My amendment would allay them. However, it is the very complexity of the issues that has led me to conclude that these matters may be better dealt with through a period of careful consultation with those affected prior to regulations being laid, and so that extent.

I have several questions which I did send to the noble Lady, the Minister yesterday, which I hope she'll be able to answer in responding to this debate. And subject to that, I do expect to be able to withdraw my amendment, as I have come to think that getting the regulation right on these matters that are quite of detail may be the better way. So firstly, can she assure the House that there will be ample time for consultation ahead of any regulations being issued, and that the groups who referred to in the Equality Impact statement, and of whom I've spoken this evening will be engaged with, listened to and heard.

Secondly, can she affirm that the Bill does not require the same regulations to be applied to all institutions that fall under its remit? What may be appropriate for some sort of acting college might be very different from yeshiva. And if that is correct. Well, the noble Lady assure us that the avenue of bespoke arrangements for particular classes of institution will be fully and openly considered and explored. Thirdly, can she confirm that regulation should be based more on the whole lifestyle of the children involved, rather than being narrowly focussed on particular times of day and days of the week? These divisions, my Lords, do not always carry the same status in some of our minority communities.

The boys I'm speaking of, they're not allowed on social media. They're not allowed on the kind of devices that while away the time of many of our teenagers. And finally, will she agree with me that due attention must be given in any regulations to the teachings of faith communities regarding sensitive matters such as relationships and sex education, so that young people are equipped to live in a pluralist British society, but without having been told that their faith and beliefs are wrong or somehow not British.

I beg to move.
21:40
Lord Marks of Hale Portrait Lord Marks of Hale (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed clause 37, page 83, line 42. At end, insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. >> My Lords, I rise to support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to support amendment 175A the government and the Secretary of State for the Secretary of State for education in particular, have rightly been vocal in confronting anti-Semitism in education. But that commitment must extend beyond condemning violence or ban towards Jews. But the government cannot condemn violence and bans against Jewish people, but then ban or close down their faith institutions. The government makes no secret of the fact that this clause 37 established established religious established religious institutions, which provide not only home education.

Yeshivas are safe and safeguarded institutions. They are not schools, they do not provide academic education and cannot be turned into schools without destroying their religious purpose. They exist to inculcate a lived faith that some noble Lords may raise an eyebrow at. That purpose says more about the distance of our own society from faith traditions than about the yeshivas themselves. Alongside attending yeshivas, these boys are home schooled that home education is serious and improving. I have seen their new communal platforms personally and it is now in active use.

This amendment before the house is narrow and proportionate. It ensures the continued safeguarding of yeshivas, requires registered home education, regulated of course by the local authority, and prevents the misclassification of religious institutions. In short, it allows the government to achieve its aims of maintaining child welfare and education whilst recognising the lawful set up of the Haredi Jewish community. Report stage is the final opportunity to correct this in primary legislation. Choose a biblical imagery. The government's heart and lips must be aligned.

The Haredi Jewish community and its yeshivas must continue to flourish, their children safe and homeschooled. This amendment is the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

only way that this can happen. Mr. speaker, against amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. speaker, against amendment 1758, it's tabled in the same way as it was at Report stage, but I accept that it was Bishop of Oxford rather than the Bishop of rather than the Bishop of Manchester who moved it on that occasion. But I don't really want to rehearse all those arguments to rehearse all those arguments again. I think it was a good debate, and I just want to sum them up and express a few further points. But
21:43
Baroness Morris of Yardley Portrait Baroness Morris of Yardley (Labour)
-
-
express a few further points. But to say this is not a bill that is trying to abolish yeshivas, it's not the intent of the legislation. And I would join both speakers so far in saying that I cherish and welcome the fact that we are a country that values education for all children, allows faiths, people of all faiths, to reflect that faith in their own education. I have it sometimes at my own political expense defended and the state systems as Roman Catholic Church of England and many schools.

And because there are many people who think that we ought not to have faith schools at all, I've always defended that because I think it's important tenant of a free society, and I value the contribution that they make to our life. And I feel the same about people of any faith. This is not about the Orthodox Jewish faith. The amendment that is down could be could be used by people of any faith to start a school and have ten days a day of religious instruction and home education in the evening.

And I think that points very clear. However, the way some faiths are organising their education at the moment, I'm opposed to and without rehearsing the arguments, it comes down quite simply to this that if a child may be under 11, is in a yeshiva or any other school, but the Shiva has been the one that's been mentioned from eight in the morning till six at night. I do not believe they can be home educated effectively in the evening. I don't think that's what we're about.

And if we take faith out of that and think of the needs of the child, we cherish our differences. But we're only a cohesive society if we cherish the things that we hold together and at the same. And for me, one of the sameness of our community, of our society, is that we believe in the right of the child to have a broad and balanced education. And I don't see how in this structure, 8 to 6 at the yeshiva, only religious education, sometimes not in the English language, and then home education from 6:00 onwards.

I don't think how we're delivering that to those children. It's as simple as that. And what I would say is that I have met people who've been educated in the Shiva movement, and they wouldn't describe it in the same way that the Bishop of Manchester described it. It's the same as any other school. There are people who like it, people who don't like it, people who've served well, people who it's not served well. It's a it's as simple as that. So let's not go down this line because we think it's one form of education that everybody cherishes and wants to preserve.

This is as much a difference of opinion in this as as there is in anything else. And the last point I'd want to make is that it is possible both to be at school, have an education whereby you have an ultra-Orthodox Jewish instruction and education and the broad and balanced curriculum as well. Both are there are schools that do that. There are schools that do that. And what this amendment is asking us to do is to exclude the bit that's the broad and balanced education and only have the bit.

That's the education instruction. And I can't see why this group of people should be excluded from the bill, the main purpose of which is to make sure we safeguard children. And I accept that the amendment says that safeguarding would take place, but also, as much as we are able to make sure that our children have the sameness, that broad and balanced education not follow the national curriculum, not to have to slavishly do what other schools do, but to make them available to a broad range of learning and facts and experiences that mean when they grow up, they have both the faith, which for some people underpins their morality and their vision and purpose in life, but they have that broad and balanced education, which makes them an even more fulfilling member of the community and able to contribute.

And my last point was this I would just ask the bishop to consider that I think he's put this down as an amendment to protect the shivas. But what it opens up is the ability of anyone, of any faith, anyone of any faith to set up a school where they're going. 8 to 6 religious instruction and home education after that. And I think that is a recipe that a direction of travel that we wouldn't wish to embark on. So I do oppose this amendment.
21:47
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
Lord. >> I don't read this amendment in the same way that Lady Baroness Morris does, but I'll come to that. I wanted to start with renewed I wanted to start with renewed thanks to the Minister for the time that she and her officials have that she and her officials have given to me, and the thanks to the right reverend Prelate for bringing this amendment forward. My Lords, this bill exemplifies how we are setting clear expectations as to the standards we should set for people who choose to educate their children outside the school system.

We shouldn't be ashamed of that. This is an honourable and right thing to do. And my main answer to Baroness Morris is if they're not achieving home education, then, then they're in trouble. There has to be home education up to the standard we think there should be, or they're not being or they're in contravention to this bill, but that does not appear to be the the problem, at least with the haredi communities that I have been in correspondence with.

And the haredi community as well. No. In addition, we have principles. They have principles about how their children should be educated. And the Prime Minister and others in government have made much of their respect and care for our Jewish communities, and it wouldn't be consistent with those statements to tip hundreds of families within the Haredi community into conflict with the state and courts, without doing our best to reconcile their views and education on hours and hours. But tipping them into conflict is what this bill, in its raw form, does.

As the government's own impact statement accepts the haredi community. For all the differences between its ancient traditions and our secular ways, is entirely worthy of our care and respect. It is law abiding. It makes a positive contribution to our economy. This children lead productive and fulfilling lives is clearly a lot of good going on. My Lords, we should therefore step back from the punitive approach that this bill allows for and enter a process of building a mutual understanding.

What does Haredi education achieve in practice? What exactly are their religious red lines? What aspects of education do we want to see improved, and what's the best way of getting that? We have clearly put the haredi community, or substantial parts of it, in a state of fear. The government are pushing through this bill unamended, asking the haredi community to trust in the department's goodwill, to devise regulations that they will be able to work with. This, surely, is the time for a clear statement from the Minister that the government is committed to reaching an outcome that allows both our sets of principles to be to be observed.

I understood from the officials that we've met that yeshivas to be regulated as IIs under this bill, and not to be expected to provide the whole of a child's education. This is most welcome and a cornerstone of eventual agreement. Yeshivas provide religious education. Their children's general education is provided through the elective home education system, and should be held to the same standards as we are holding all of elective home education to. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that understanding discussion will throw up some areas of fundamental agreement, such as safeguarding, where the focus will be on getting the mechanisms right and other areas of deep disagreement.

We should be determined to resolve those agreements. My limited experience of listening to the haredi community, and my long experience of listening to the DfE both give me a lot of confidence that we will see a positive outcome for both parties. We should set a reasonable timescale for this process a couple of years, as discussed with officials at our most recent meeting, would be a period long enough not to cramp the discussion and short enough for it to be clear that the discussions must reach a conclusion.

We should involve all the main strands of Haredi thought. The DfE have been here before in successfully setting up an elective home education working group, and in an environment of strong and diverse opinions, such a working group would build confidence within the Haredi community that they were heard and understood, and a Minister should be involved. Some of the questions to be resolved clearly require the application of ministerial judgement. We should understand the depth of our misunderstandings. We find it hard, as the noble Baroness Lea Lord Morse illustrates, to believe that children will have the energy and focus for a good general education.

If the school day is full of religious studies. But as the right reverend Prelate said, they don't return home to to their devices and to computer games and all the other things that distract our children, they they lead a much more focussed life. And they clearly do. If you look at the outcomes, the people that they grow up to be, they clearly do absorb very effectively a good, broad general education. I think if we express our wishes in terms of the results that we desire, not in terms of structures created for other purposes, I believe that we will build mutual understanding and trust.

We should listen to the Haredi communities exposition of their principles and explore how those principles can be upheld at the same time as we uphold ours. And I very much hope the Minister will, in her reply, commit her government to such a course.
21:53
21:54
21:56
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Minister for Women and Equalities) (Labour)
-
-
As other noble Lords have said. Firstly, I thank the the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Manchester, for bringing forward amendment 175 a and also, of course, that this amendment was previously tabled at Committee stage and debated extensively then and for reasons of time. I will not repeat that debate. However, I will agree with my noble friend Baroness Morris that support for this clause is absolutely not a failure to recognise the significance of faith based education across a range of faiths in our country, something which, my hon.

Friend is right, she has championed and supported even in the face of opposition. And nor can I assure the haredi community. Is it. Is it a denigration of their faith or the way in which they wish to express it in a plural England, where I very much hope that they feel able to be part of our a full part of our and to remain a full part of our community. However, it may assist the House if I clarify the purpose and effect of clause 37 and the government's general approach in this area.

And in so doing, I will attempt to answer the questions which were raised by the Right Reverend Prelate. Clause 37 starts from the position that if a setting is providing a full time education to children of compulsory school age, it should be regulated and subject to oversight. I trust that there is broad support across the House for this principle. Clause 37 therefore extends to more settings. The regulatory regime found in chapter one of part four of the Education and Skills Act, 2008.

And just to reiterate, it is categorically not the government's intention to close down yeshivas because this is the same ready made, flexible and effective system of regulation that independent schools have been able to operate within for many years, including those with a primary faith ethos. And also, let me be clear, there is nothing in this clause which in itself requires impacted settings to become schools or to operate identically to other settings already regulated by this regime. What the clause does do in broad terms, is subject impacted full time settings to a regime of registration, the need to comply with prescribed standards, and of inspection against those standards.

While people running educational settings should already have an idea on whether they provide a full time education based on an ordinary understanding of those words, the government will produce guidance so that it is clear whether a setting is being brought into regulation by this measure. In addition, the right reverend Prelate asked for confirmation that the regulatory regime found in the 2008 act permits different standards to be prescribed for different types of setting. I can confirm that this is the case, and further confirm that Ministers have not yet decided which standards would be prescribed.

Any decision will only follow extensive engagement and consultation. This is likely to take at a minimum several months, and will take into account all relevant views, including those concerning the appropriateness of teaching, relationships and sex education in regulated settings. I have attempted to set this out plainly, and I hope to provide reassurance because I am aware that, whilst not specifically designed for yeshivas, the clause has caused some concern amongst some Haredi Jews, and I hope that this explanation provides some reassurance of its effect, and that in doing that, it makes clear the government's intentions in this area and the practical effect of this clause and giving, given that on withdraw his amendment, and that we can continue constructive discussions, whilst also ensuring that the intentions of this clause are realised in the way in which it's implemented.
22:01
22:02
None Portrait AMDT: 176 Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Minister for Women and Equalities) (Labour)
-

Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. We now come is by leave withdrawn. We now come to the eighth Group, amendment 176, in clause 40 Baroness Smith of Malvern.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK. Sorry my Lords, we moved slightly faster than I expected us slightly faster than I expected us to move, which I'm sure is of great. to move, which I'm sure is of great. Is greeted with great welcome by most members of your Lordships most members of your Lordships House. So, moving to Group eight, I beg to move government amendment beg to move government amendment 176. I begin with the group of amendments concerning clause 40 of the bill.

Government amendments 1762183 and Government Amendment 185 principally concerned the bill's provisions on the Material change regime, which governs the type of change independent schools require. Secretary of State approval to make. When the bill was first published, concern was raised that minor or secondary changes things like bike sheds or classroom conversions would be unnecessarily captured if changes of buildings are to schools already registered address were treated as material changes. The government has listened to these concerns, and the amendments now make clear that building changes are to schools.

Registered address do not require material change approval. Importantly, the same principle applies to any additional addresses that the department registers after approving a change of building. Further changes of building at these addresses will not be treated as material changes. These amendments take a proportionate approach. They reflect that a registered school making use of new or unfamiliar addresses, may be placing pupils at higher risk of harm. Under these changes, the focus will be on any addresses beyond the school's registered address and any additional addresses registered following an approved change of buildings, where there is no prior assurance that standards are met.

In addition, these amendments clarify that only changes to how a special institution one providing a special education is specially organised, constitutes a material change and requires ministerial approval approval sorry actions taken solely to meet an individual pupil's needs do not constitute a material change. The government has worked closely with interested parties to ensure that the original policy intent is properly captured. It is right that where independent schools make changes to their operations, which may place children at risk of harm, the Secretary of State has made aware of this and has given assurance that these changes are safe.

This is an important principle, and these amendments are a sensible balancing act between strengthening oversight and avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy. I now turn to amendment 184. At Committee stage, there was broad support for clause 43, which aims to strengthen Ofsteds powers to investigate suspected illegal, unregistered independent schools and registered schools operating unlawfully. These additional powers have been drawn with an awareness that the powers currently available to Ofsted in Section 97 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 are inadequate to identify suspected criminal behaviour.

Therefore, when drawing up clause 43, the government has listened very closely to the Chief Inspector to make sure that these powers can be put into operation. This amendment is aimed to give greater confidence to the Chief Inspector when operating under these new powers. It is the government's experience that demonstrating offences in this space relies heavily on gathering documentary evidence. Some of this evidence may, under ordinary circumstances, be considered confidential or otherwise fall within existing legislative restrictions. This amendment therefore, facilitates the Chief Inspector's access to such information when acting under the authority of a warrant, where this is relevant to deciding whether a where this is relevant to deciding whether a relevant offence is being or has been committed, it further ensures that independent judicial oversight in the form of a warrant is sought before such documents are inspected, copied or, where necessary, seized in reliance on these powers.

This approach strikes the right balance between protecting the rights of the individual and ensuring the Chief Inspector is able to properly inspect potentially dangerous settings. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment. I've lost it now. Well, which one are we? One eight.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One eight. Six one. No, it's 1176. It's fine. I was getting ahead of myself. Amendment proposed in clause 40, Amendment proposed in clause 40, page 99, line eight. Leave out from address to end of line 11 and address to end of line 11 and insert of buildings that the institution makes available for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

student use. Just a very quick question. Ask the Minister to respond to this in widening of an amendment g184 the one which she described towards the end of her speech. I agree with
22:07
22:08
22:09
22:09
22:11
None Portrait AMDT: 190 Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-

My Lords, the issue of complaints against teachers is complaints against teachers is changing considerably, particularly with the advent of social media and AI, which can be used to identify and draft lengthy complaints which schools have to respond to. I understand that up to 1 in 5 members of the work teaching workforce are currently facing a complaint, and that rises to 1 in 3 of our headteachers. I'm very grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Blower for signing amendment 190 in my name, and to the National Education Union for their support.

And I'm also grateful to the Minister for schools, the hon. Member for Camden, for our conversation last week. The original draft of my speech said that I was very hopeful that when the Minister came to close, she would accept the amendment. But I have to say, I was very disappointed by the reply that I received from the Minister for schools today, which and I paraphrase, but she accepted the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Blair and I had raised.

When we met with her. She stressed it was not the government's intention to do any of those bad things. It was to address things like teachers who take a year sabbatical and then come back, and all of this would be addressed through regulations. And I feel like a cracked record saying we can't legislate just for this government and this minister's intentions. We can absolutely imagine this is the area kind of area that could become very politicised in future.

And I think there is a basic argument. So our amendment would mean that complaints could not be brought in relation to a teacher's behaviour based before they began teaching and after they finished teaching, and the idea that you can bring a standard of professional conduct to someone when they're not acting in the profession, I think is stretching things. Let's just imagine if Ministers were held to a ministerial code before and after their tenure, and they obviously I think we would agree are, we could argue, wield greater power and influence.

Although I do admit that at times it doesn't always feel like that. The other thing, I think, is that our expectations, both of teachers and our standards in society, change over time and judging historic behaviour against today's professional standards does risk unfair hindsight and inconsistency, particularly where the conduct was lawful or accepted at the time. Teachers arguably have some of the highest professional standards around. They're held to them 24 over seven, 365 days a year as they are a teacher, let alone before they even become one and after they leave.

And from a safeguarding perspective, surely the DBS enhanced checks should be sufficient. And while they may not be perfect, we need to have some line of where these different regimes begin and end. From a practical perspective, the Tra investigations and hearings are already subject to lengthy delays. From the latest report. Investigations take on average 25 weeks, with hearings taking a further 60 weeks. So that's close to two years for an average teacher who is subject to a hearing to settle the issues of which they're accused.

So this. Element in the bill broadens the Tra's remit at a time when we have pressures in terms of recruitment, and the message I think it sends to the profession is a negative one. I was also pleased to add my name to amendment 191, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Muhammad of Tinsley. It's something an issue we debated at length in the Employment Rights Bill, but I'm hopeful the Minister might look at it a bit more favourably at this point.

Again, it deals with complaints against teachers and their rights to accompaniment, and Ministers did recognise during the passage of the Employment Rights Bill that accompaniment in formal proceedings is intended to provide calm, professional support and help processes work better in practice. And obviously that's extremely important in schools given the context in which staff work. So I hope the Minister will recognise the importance of this issue for teachers and school staff, particularly those who choose not to be a member of a trade union.

And I hope she will set out how the government intends to ensure that existing frameworks and guidance reflect the need for fair and supportive disciplinary processes across school staff, our school staff and our teachers deserve to be treated with fairness, dignity and compassion just as they show their pupils and colleagues every day. I beg to move.
22:17
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed in clause 46, >> Amendment proposed in clause 46, page 112, line one, subparagraph I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

page 112, line one, subparagraph I. So, my Lords, I rise to move my amendments in this group. amendments in this group. Amendments two, two, three through two, two, two, six and your Lordships' House will remember we we debated the issue in these amendments in June of last year. The amendments have two aims to provide parents with an effective means of escalating a formal complaint about a school when they are not satisfied with the school's response, and to introduce a mechanism for better enforcing schools legal duties than provision of education, e.g.

over political impartiality. Proposing these amendments allows for a debate drawing attention to breaches of education law, the failure of the DfE to enforce it, or to support concerned parents, and the disempowering of parents in the education of their children. At present, my Lords, there is little or no enforcement of significant parts of education law because a the school inspector Ofsted does not consider compliance with education law per se. When challenged about hitherto rating schools outstanding that are clearly in breach of their legal duties, Ofsted has stated that there were many difficult obligations and it is not compliant.

It is not a compliance driven inspectorate. Inspectors are by profession teachers, so may not be equipped always to make judgements over legal compliance. B parents could, in theory, launch a judicial review against their child's school. But the very significant costs of such legal action, and the damage it could do to the parents relationships with their child's schools, our school, are significant factors. Parents can use the school's internal complaints process and at a state funded school, if they remain dissatisfied, can escalate their complaint to the DfE.

However, there are examples of extremely poor handling of complaints by the department. The department appears to go to considerable lengths occasionally to evade making any decision, and parents can literally be waiting years after they first submitted their complaint to the school before they receive a response, by which time their child may well have moved on from another school to another school. As a consequence, failure to comply with some education laws is widespread, and schools don't always take them seriously. It is common for teachers and governors not to know what education law requires, demonstrating that in practice it is largely irrelevant.

There are exceptions. For example, inspectors will consider aspects of a school's work on safeguarding, and consequently schools are more likely to closely follow the statutory safeguarding guidance. Keeping children safe in education. Although there have been concerns about schools practice even here. So the amendments my Lords, introduce a right for parents to appeal complaints to the first tier tribunal rather than to the DfE if they have completed the internal school process and remain dissatisfied. The internal school process usually has at least two formal stages.

Parents would retain their existing ability to escalate a complaint to the DfE. The amendments work by inserting new clauses into existing education Acts. The 2002 Education Act for local authority maintained schools, the 2008 Education and Skills Act for independent educational institutions, including academies, and the 1996 Education Act for Non-maintained Special Schools and the Last Amendment, my Lords for 26 allows sorry 226 allows for consequential amendments to be made. I won't go into detail of the amendments themselves because the hour is late, but let me just finish my Lords by explaining the impact of the amendments.

In order to make use of these provisions, parents would need to specify the duty they are concerned the school is breaching in their complaint. There will also be some costs involved. Not all, not all parents are. Not all complaints will be able to make use of these provisions. However, in those situations, parents will be no worse off. Still, having their current ability to escalate to the DfE. The general effect, however, will be to increase the awareness of the school's legal obligations, both among parents and schools, and increasingly clear focus on schools.

Obligations may lead to greater objectivity in parental complaints and help reduce spurious complaints. Whereas in the past, schools have sometimes withheld information on what they teach from parents, the duty of disclosure would compel them to provide this information. If an appeal to the tribunal is pursued. Preventing secretive approaches to what children are being taught about sometimes sensitive subjects. As tribunal judgements start to be issued, teachers and governors will become more aware of the legal requirements they are under and take them more seriously.

Improving compliance, potentially reducing parental complaints in the long run. Politically sensitive judgements, for example, whether particular teaching on gender identity is or is not a breach of the school's duty of political impartiality will pass from the Secretary of State and the Department to the tribunal, which will have a greater ability to prioritise a dispassionate consideration of the legal questions over political considerations. The Secretary of State and the Department will also benefit in that their policy decisions that lead to changes in schools, legal obligations or changes in statutory guidance to which these schools are legally required to have regard, will be given better effect in schools.

Although judgements of the tribunal at first tier do not set a binding precedent, unlike with decisions that upper tier, they will nevertheless build up a body of legal opinion on the application of education law, which will be a valuable reference for governors, teachers and parents. If tribunal decisions repeatedly support bad practice, this will provide clear evidence to Parliament of the need for changes in education law. This may help cut through the claims and counterclaims about whether or not there are problems in schools teaching in areas such as RSE providing a more objective basis for debate and for evidence based policy.

And for those reasons, my Lord, I'm happy to move these four amendments tabled in my name.
22:24
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Portrait Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to move. Amendment 191. Amendment 191. >> In the name of the noble Lord, Lord Knight, to which I have added my name. In doing so, I should also declare my interest as Honorary President of Cobis. Unfortunately, the noble Lord Lord Knight is unable to be here today, but I'm grateful for him to for sharing recent correspondence he's had with the noble Baroness, the Minister on this matter. My Lords, it's critically important that we act to improve the safeguarding arrangements between schools here in England and international schools overseas.

The Safeguarding Alliance has supplied a couple of, I'm afraid, very concerning examples of recent cases where the system has clearly failed in one international school, sexually explicit materials discovered on a school owned computer during recent IT maintenance. A subsequent investigation identified multiple videos showing a member of staff live streaming and recording explicit content, which was stored within their user account. The content was accessed was assessed as being of such extreme nature that the local UK embassy declined to view or handle the material.

A referral was made to the Teaching Regulation Authority, but the Tra confirmed that the matter fell outside its jurisdiction. The member of staff is now working in another country and able to return to teach here undetected. In a second example, a nursery teacher was discovered by a parent in the act of sexually abusing a child within the school setting. The parent immediately reported the incident to the school's senior leadership team. The school made an immediate referral to the relevant local authorities, and also attempted to report the incident to the Tra, but as the school was based overseas, the Tra was unable to accept all process the referral.

The school had no clear alternative reporting or regulatory pathway for international safeguarding concerns involving a UK regulated teacher. The alleged perpetrator subsequently left the setting and their current whereabouts remain unknown. For this reason, clause 46 in the bill is very welcome in that it extends the jurisdiction of the Tra to those who have previously worked in England. It will give much needed assurance to employers as teachers return from overseas. However, there remains a narrow but significant and important gap where an individual has qualified to teach in England through ICTs, has completed induction in a British school overseas, but has never taught in England.

There is currently no route for serious misconduct overseas to be reported to the Tra, and as the Noble Baron, the noble Baroness, the Minister has agreed in correspondence. This does cover a small number of teachers, a very small number of teachers, but it still remains a risk to children if this loophole is not closed. The substantive reason for the government resisting this amendment was set out in a letter which the noble Lord Lord Knight received last night. In essence, it argued that the Tra can't practically be expected to investigate these incidents overseas.

And yet this is precisely what it will have to do with with incidents in relation to clause 46. And I would like to stress on both of my behalf of myself and the noble Lord, Lord Knight. This amendment is not and does not seek to turn the Tra into a global regulator, nor to require the Secretary of State to investigate all misconduct overseas. It is tightly drawn, applying only to those who are qualified to teach in England and who may in due course, seek employment in our schools.

Once. Clause 47 requires all schools to employ qualified teachers, and clause 46 brings those who have previously worked in England within scope. This group is all that remains. It is a small cohort, but without this change, an individual who commits serious misconduct overseas may move on, secure a fresh reference and subsequently take up a post in England, safeguarding training reminds us that safeguarding is everyone's responsibility. It doesn't stop at national borders and that concerns must be reported wherever there is a risk to children.

This amendment in both our names is pursued in exactly that spirit, and I hope that the Minister will once again reflect on whether this narrow extension could be accommodated to deliver the share outcome I know we all seek. I beg to move.
22:29
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Portrait Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords are also grateful to >> My Lords are also grateful to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Baron, and to speak as I move. Baron, and to speak as I move. Amendment 191A during the debates, as pointed out earlier in the Employment Rights Bill, this side of the chamber appears stressed to the government to commit to a review of section ten and Employment Rights Act. That commitment was welcomed. However, it is clear that such a review will not necessarily be economy wide in scope.

What it cannot easily do is address the specific positions of teachers and school staff who work in one of the most highly regulated and safeguarding intense environments in the labour market. For teachers, disciplinary and grievance processes are not exceptional. They are a structural feature of the profession. Safeguarding laws rightly require that every allegation to be taken seriously, investigated, even where it later proves unfounded. As a result, teachers and school leaders are far more likely than most workers experience formal proceedings during their career as a normal.

Baroness noted National data shows a sharp rise in complaints and allegations against school staff. Teacher Tapp data also indicates that teachers working in the most deprived communities are twice as likely to be to face allegations than those elsewhere. This is not a marginal issue, but a routine occupational risk, particularly for those working in the most vulnerable, the most vulnerable children. The impact on mental health and well-being is profound. Teachers describe these processes as isolating and frightening, and often occurring while they are suspended and cut off from their professional community.

Navigating complex high stakes procedures under such stress can trigger long term illnesses, damage morale and confidence, and retention of profession, which we all wish to sustain. The profession is clear about what would help. According to teacher Tapp, 97% of teachers say they would welcome access to trained companions in disciplinary agreements proceedings, and almost two thirds say they would wish for legal representation that does not reflect a desire to litigate, but the anxiety about being left alone in opaque and intimidating processes.

And I emphasise, my Lords, that this amendment does not permit legal representation, but has been carefully drafted to avoid that. What teachers are asking for is neither radical nor costly, allowing to be accompanied by a trained professional in there is entirely within the government's gift. It requires no additional public expenditure and no new bureaucracy. Indeed, by improving the quality of the process and reducing escalation, it is likely to reduce costs for schools and local authorities. We must also recognise the changing context.

The department's own guidance acknowledged that artificial intelligence is increasing the volume and complexity of complaints, leading to more investigations and greater staff stress. My Lords, in that environment, and in the absence of consistent access to support because becomes increasingly problematic. This amendment does not undermine trade unions, which play a vital role. And has and they have Liberal Democrat support. However, not all staff members, my Lords, are union members and some may prefer alternative support organisations such as Adapt and Education Support exists to provide training, professional assistance alongside not in competition with unions.

Finally, this amendment raises no issues of legal representation or ease compliance. Other professions. Professions operate under heightened regulatory duties, already have bespoke procedural protections. Teachers do too, and this amendment simply reflects that reality. If the government cannot accept the amendment today, I ask the Minister at least to commit to strengthening the guidance to signal professional commitment to a good practice and ensure that the forthcoming section ten review explicitly considers staff and school teachers and school staff supporting school staff at their most vulnerable moment should not be controversial.

My Lords Amendment 100 EIA simply seeks to ensure access to appropriate support when it is most needed. I beg to move. Good.
22:33
22:34
22:34
Baroness Spielman Portrait Baroness Spielman (Conservative)
-
-
to any head teacher and you'll hear this I propose streamlining the current messy patchwork of statutory provisions to create a statutory provisions to create a single, streamlined model in which complaints would be triaged and considered only by the most considered only by the most relevant body, with information available to others when necessary. And this would, I believe, improve the capacity of schools to respond to serious concerns. The noble Lady. The Minister's response was that the issue was being considered by the Improving Education Together group of unions and other stakeholders with which the government is committed to co-developing policy, design and implementation.

And indeed, this consideration seems to have happened because guidance was recently published both for parents by DfE and for schools by parent kind. The content is entirely sensible, but it doesn't address the major structural problem that a minority of parents can and do spray complaints at every conceivably relevant entity, including Ofsted, DfE, the teacher regulation agency, as well as school governors and MATs or local authorities. Proportion of parents do not desist, even when they get fair and reasonable responses, and these volumes are drowning out the serious complaints that absolutely do need attention.

And despite this guidance, there are still those different legal frameworks and best practice guidelines for maintained schools and academies, which does continue to create confusion. I think schools will have hoped for greater acknowledgement of the scale of the issue and the impact it's having, both on staff wellbeing and also more generally on school capacity to respond, especially in relation to AI generated complaints. I think they will have been hoping now be hoping, that the schools White Paper will provide for root and branch review of the system, including a co-ordinated system to triage complaints such as this amendment would provide for, and perhaps also some powers for, school leaders to act where there is unreasonable behaviour that goes beyond what's contemplated in this amendment.

And with apologies to my noble friend Lord Jackson, I think rationalising the current problems to to release the capacity that needs to be there for serious complaints is perhaps more likely to help than adding an additional layer. I therefore hope that the noble Lady will be able to reassure me that the government does intend to go beyond mere advice as to how all parties can use the current legal framework better. And finally, amendments 190 and 191 are also important in establishing some important principles of fairness for school staff as well as for parents.

And amendment 191 would close a small but significant loophole.
22:37
Lord Hampton Portrait Lord Hampton (Crossbench)
-
-
Very briefly, to speak to amendment 191A, to which I would have added my name if I'd been slightly more organised. My Lords, I've been a member of teaching I've been a member of teaching unions in the past, but I'm not any longer. Many teachers are not members of unions. Personal decisions, whether cost or philosophical trade unions, play an important role in the workplace. But not being a member should not put you at a disadvantage when facing a formal allegation.

It's all very well bringing a colleague along, my Lords, but apart from the moral support, they might not be much help. Doctors and dentists are permitted to be accompanied at disciplinary hearings by representatives from professional defence organisations under the NHS, maintaining high professional standards framework. This is not undermined trade unions or weaken safeguarding. It is simply ensured that highly scrutinised professionals are left, not left unsupported at critical moments and has helped to ensure that due process has been followed.

Teachers and school staff operate under comparable levels of public scrutiny and regulatory oversight. Amendment 191A is a modest, sensible step that reflects the reality and promotes fairness and consistency in how disciplinary processes are conducted. It does not even go so far as arrangements in medicine, but is a step in the right direction, and I strongly support it. Amendment 243 D to which I did actually add my name is very simple. I know from first hand experience how complicated school complaints can be, with different complaints being sent to different organisations, often duplicated.

They can be going to the DfE, Ofsted, Tra, the school and the LEA. This is a very simple, overdue and badly needed amendment.
22:39
Baroness Blower Portrait Baroness Blower (Labour)
-
-
My Lord, it is a pleasure to listen to the speech from the noble listen to the speech from the noble Lady, Baroness Evans, because that was about a modest change to the remit of the Tra. However, I, I rise to speak in support of 190 amendment 192, which I have added my name precisely, in fact, to not to extend the remit of the Tra in particular in two particular ways, one of which is that the Tra should be allowed, as the noble Baroness opposite has said, to consider complaints about behaviour before someone becomes a qualified and practising teacher, and also to also to consider complaints after someone has stopped teaching.

I don't know whether there's any confusion in the minds of of anyone in the government. Clearly, if someone interrupts their teaching and then wants to come back to teaching, that's a different matter. If we're talking, though, about people who have permanently left teaching, that does seem to be an unreasonable sort of person against whom the Tra could proceed. So with regard to the people who the Tra might seek to proceed against before they've started teaching, their National education Union says once the door is open to pre career conduct, it becomes very difficult to draw principled boundaries.

How far back should investigations reach, should conduct as a teenager or student be included? What weight should be given to immaturity, context or personal development, or what we described both the noble Lady opposite and myself in the meeting with Minister Gould, which I was very pleased to attend, as youthful high jinks which reach which in no way reaches any kind of criminality, but someone might seek to complain about it. So, my Lords, I, I think there is a real problem here.

Even the even my honourable my, the, the Minister, Minister Gould did say that she could see that what we were saying was these proposals did seem to be very much too much broad brush. And that is indeed my concern. Teachers are rightly held to very high standards, and although we heard some egregious examples of bad behaviour from teachers in general and in the vast, vast majority, teachers are not only held to high standards, but they meet them and exceed them, and therefore, to put the pressure of the possibility that someone could complain about pre career conduct or post retirement conduct seems to me to be an unnecessary burden to be putting both on the teaching profession, but frankly also on the Tra who are not currently able to manage the workload that they've got, although that isn't my prime consideration here.

Now, you will have heard from the noble Lady opposite that during the meeting. I think we hoped that there might actually be some movement on this, like the noble Lady opposite. I have now had the letter from Minister Gould, and she does say, I want to assure you that we are committing to setting out in guidance a framework that makes clear the factors that will need to be considered before the the the Tra can proceed with an investigation.

She also says we will do this in consultation with the sector and the unions in due course. Now, like the noble Lady opposite, and has, as had been said from many causes of this chamber on many occasions, setting out guidance and frame a framework is not the same as having something on the face of the bill, and the new concludes that even if guidance later seeks to limit this, primary legislation would authorise the power and guidance alone.

Cannot cure an overly broad statutory remit. So it is with regret that I am saying that I. I think that the government has got it wrong on this. However, I am slightly pleased that there will actually be a consultation and I do. I am sure that the sector and the unions will engage very vigorously in that, and I hope the tone is not being set by this being on the face. If this amendment were not accepted, that this being on the face of the bill implies that we think that there is every reason to have open season on anyone who might become a teacher, or anyone who once was a teacher.
22:44
22:46
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Minister for Women and Equalities) (Labour)
-
-
Yeah. amendments concerns three distinct areas which I will take in turn. The two amendments, 119 191 concern the jurisdiction of the Teaching Regulation agency. And let me start with amendment 190, which would remove the ability of the Tra to investigate alleged misconduct that occurred before an individual began their teaching career. I do understand that the concern here may also be that clause 46 permits the Tra to investigate those who, at any time, have been employed or engaged in teaching work, and hold those responsible for their conduct at any time in their life.

Given that that includes me, I can wholly understand the concerns that noble Lords have. Let me just say, though, at present, the teaching misconduct regime limits the tra's jurisdiction only to those who are currently employed or engaged in teaching work, or who were so employed or engaged when the referral was made. And there are problems with this, it can't be right. And clause 46 addresses this by extending the tra's jurisdiction to those who have at any time been employed or engaged in teaching work.

It would, I think, noble Lords could imagine that there could be times when somebody has very recently resigned, possibly with the idea of avoiding a referral to come and not able to be investigated. So I think there are circumstances where it would be appropriate to change the ability of the Tra to be able to investigate, but can I say, given that what noble Lords have said today and despite the assurances that my noble friend Georgia Georgia Gould was able to provide to noble Lords during the meeting that they held with her, that I can understand a noble Lords concerns, and can I therefore undertake to say that I don't think the Department will be in a position where they would want to implement clause 46 without having undertaken considerable further consultation, considered the points that noble Lords have raised, and I hope I can give that assurance this evening, and I will find a way to come back to noble Lords with how we would intend to do that, and some of the safeguards around the sorts of issues that noble Lords have identified this evening on amendment 190, which seeks to narrow the tra's sorry, whilst amendment 90 seeks to narrow the trees jurisdiction.

Amendment 191. As the noble Lady, Baroness Evans says, seeks to extend the tra's jurisdiction. I understand the concern here as well, which is that holders of of ICTs may work in a school in England, but may also have previously committed misconduct in a foreign country, and as such, the tra's jurisdiction should be expanded to cover all holders of IICSA TS. There are problems with this amendment which have been outlined in the correspondence that we have had with the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and I do thank him and the noble Lady, Baroness Evans, for the approach that they're taking to what is clearly a worrying problem, where we would not want there to be a limitation on the ability to restrict those who have committed the types of behaviours that the noble Lady outlined, from being able to work in where we would want to, to be able to restrict them from being able to work in schools in the UK, there have been some important developments in the way in which it's possible for schools to check the teachers record ways in which it's possible for both international schools and UK schools to do that.

But once again, I feel that noble Lords have made a strong case and whilst we can't for the technical reasons that were outlined in the correspondence, except amendment 191, I can undertake to continue discussions with the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, with my noble friend Lord Knight, and with the Safeguarding Alliance, to try and find a way through this, because I recognise that there is an issue here. Turning to the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed's proposed new clause, amendment 191A on opening up the right to accompaniment for school staff at disciplinary and grievance hearings.

While I thank him for his thoughts on this matter and other noble Lords as well. This. I don't believe that this amendment is necessary. This issue, as others have said, was debated at some length during the passage of the Employment Rights Bill. Following Third Reading, my noble friend Lord Collins set out the government's commitment to review in its entirety the functioning of section ten of the Employment Relations Act 1999, which includes provisions on who can be a companion and the right to be accompanied.

As part of the review, we will engage with relevant and interested stakeholders and following its conclusion, we will publish our findings in Parliament. As such, this House accepted the government's concession on this matter and the amendment was withdrawn. We will, of course, consider the implications of the review outcomes for the school workforce, as the noble Lord asks, and I hope that the noble Lord will now be able to agree with the government that it would be entirely inappropriate for the Department of Education to act unilaterally on this matter for school staff until the full review has taken place and reported, and I hope, therefore he will be able to withdraw his amendment.

Turning to the group of amendments relating to Parental complaints and Appeals, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson and the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman and Baron, for tabling again these amendments. Amendment two two, three, two, two four and 225 would allow parents and carers of children in respectively maintain schools, independent schools, including academies and non-maintained special schools, to appeal to the first tier tribunal. Amendment 226 would allow for regulations to amend secondary legislation on the rules and procedures of the first tier tribunal, and amendment 243 seeks to introduce a central complaint system to handle all school related complaints in England, and for these complaints to be held in a central database accessible to the Department for Education and Ofsted.

My noble friend Baroness Blake previously gave detail at Committee stage on the work that we're doing to improve the schools, the school complaints system and I will not repeat that today, but I will confirm that our aim remains to reduce the burden on schools and leaders, whilst also maintaining parents rights to raise concerns and have them properly considered. We will be providing more detail in the forthcoming Schools White Paper on this, but concerning the role of the first tier tribunal, we still do not believe that introducing it as an additional layer of appeal to the general school complaint system is the right way to achieve our aims of reducing burdens on schools.

The first tier tribunal is already under significant pressure and despite the investment of additional administrative and judicial resource, which ensured the conclusion of more appeals, we think the rise we see, nevertheless, a rise in demand is outstripping the increase in capacity at present, and expanding the remit of the tribunal would only lead to longer delays for families. We do recognise, so we don't think it would be appropriate or proportionate to expand the first tier tribunal's role to include general complaints about schools, but we do recognise the concerns being raised about.

The concerns being raised generally and, as I say, we are actively looking at how we can strengthen the independent element of the school complaints process so that where parents need to escalate their complaint, they are reassured that it is assessed fairly and objectively. The noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, talked about the work that the department has been doing with the charity Parent Kind, and as she pointed out, we have worked with them to develop the Guide to School complaints that was published on the 20th of January.

And we are also exploring potential digital options for improving the system. And this work involves user research and testing with the sector, including with parents, teachers and headteachers, to ensure that we get this right and it works for everybody involved. This type of work, of course, takes time, but I hope this offers assurance to noble Lords that we are considering this as part of our package of reforms that, as I have said, we will set out in the schools white Paper.

I hope that I have addressed noble Lords concerns in responding to these amendments, and I would invite them to withdraw their amendments.
22:56
22:57
None Portrait AMDT: 192 Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Minister for Women and Equalities) (Labour)
-

move amendment 192. Government amendments 192 and 193 would strengthen accountability in the strengthen accountability in the academy sector and introduce trust level inspection to ensure high acro level inspection to ensure high acro Together, they respond to discussion and points raised during committee and deliver a proportionate, effective framework for intervention and improvement. for intervention and improvement. Amendment 192 narrows the scope of clause 50, so that the Secretary of State may issue directions only where an academy proprietor has breached a duty imposed by its funding agreements.

As stated during committee, clause 50 is an important lever for improving accountability in the academy sector. However, we have listened carefully to the concerns raised in this House and in the other place about breadth of the original clause, and have acted to respond to those concerns and to provide clarity. In particular, the amendment removes the anticipatory element of the power and confines its use to cases of actual breach, rather than where a breach is considered likely. My Lords, we want the use of directions to be clear, direct and proportionate.

The government amendment provides reassurance without weakening accountability, while maintaining the ability to act swiftly where standards are at risk. Academy trustees are also charity trustees and we will engage with the Charity Commission where appropriate under our Memorandum of Understanding. Prior to issuing a direction. Turning now to Government Amendment 193, which introduces Ofsted inspection of academy trusts and will close a significant accountability gap. We have heard during debates the central role academy trusts play in our education system. Yet accountability has not kept pace with growth, despite decisions at trust level potentially having wide reaching impacts on the quality of education and support children receive in academies.

Inspection will provide independent expert assessment of trusts strengths and areas for improvement, supporting a self-improving system and identifying where intervention is needed. This delivers on the manifesto commitment and responds to calls made across the House at
23:02
Lord Bishop of Portsmouth Portrait The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth (Bishops)
-
-
These These two These two first These two first and These two first and together. These two first and together. 193A and 193B. These two amendments are about good communication. They would require the Chief Inspector to include the relevant religious body, along with the Academy proprietor and the Secretary of State. When a report is circulated at the conclusion of an inspection of a multi-academy trust that contains a school with a religious foundation.

For example, in the case of the Church of England, the relevant body would be the Diocesan Board of Education. Under the DBE measure 2021, DBS have a range of duties and powers, including advice, giving, data analysis and information gathering in relation to their schools and academies. Timely receipt of a multi-academy trust inspection report will enable the fulfilment of these duties and powers. I seek the noble Lady, the Minister's assurance that these straightforward amendments enabling good communication and the delivery of statutory duty, will find their way into the Bill.

I turn to the Third Amendment in my name. 193C. This ensures that where multi-academy trusts contain schools with a religious designation, these are inspected on and held account for their ethos, religious education and collective worship. At present, over 42% of Church of England schools are academies, amounting to over 20% of all academies in England. When we include Roman Catholic academies and those with other religious foundations, the total percentage rises still further to approximately one third of the entire academy estate.

All of these academies will fall under the proposed new requirement for the inspection of multi-academy trusts. However, at present there is no provision for the specialist denominational inspection of those multi academy trusts that have direct responsibility for the leadership and governance of academies with a religious foundation. My noble Lords. This contrasts markedly with current arrangements in which individual schools and academies with a religious foundation are inspected by the relevant religious body under section 48 of the 2005 Education Act, and by the contractual provisions of an Academy's funding agreement.

Agreement. My Lords, there is currently no provision within the Bill as drafted, which would mirror section 48 provision and deliver expert individual school based evaluation and accountability for multi-academy trusts containing schools of a religious character and foundation. I believe this is an omission or oversight, my Lords, with potential to affect adversely the quality of accountability and inspection for approximately a third of the Academy estate, my Lords amendment 193 seeks to address this omission by seeking to mirror current section 48 provision and good practice for multi-academy trusts containing schools with a religious foundation.

LED by the Inspectorate of Religious Bodies such as Siams for the Church of England and Methodist schools, inspections would combine, as they do most effectively today. The application of expert religious knowledge with inspection expertise to ensure that the accountability regime for the proprieties of proprietors of academies includes all significant elements of the life, leadership and governance of governance of schools in their purview. I thank the noble Lady, the Minister, for engaging with key partners in educational delivery within the National Society for education and the Catholic Education Service.

Ahead of this debate today, I trust the government will continue to work with us to find a way forward and to address this omission. To conclude, my Lords Amendments 193 and 193B are intended as friendly, simple, straightforward insertions to enhance lines of communication and to keep the relevant religious body informed. When one of its schools is inspected on amendment 193C. However, I remain deeply concerned that without the provision outlined in the amendment under my name, providers of schools of religious character will be left left with wholly inadequate inspection arrangements and entirely avoidable state of affairs, which, if unaddressed, as I have said in earlier comments, will affect approximately a third of the academy estate, a state of affairs that represents a backward step, in my view, from current inspection arrangements under section 48 of the two 2005 Education Act.

Would the noble Lady, the Minister, give assurances that she will bring forward proposals to address the omission, identify and to work with the National Society and the Catholic Education Service to bring forward proposals or pilots that address our concerns. Prior to the bill's Third Reading.
23:09
Baroness Spielman Portrait Baroness Spielman (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, a substantial new section has been added to this Bill at Report stage by the Government's at Report stage by the Government's Amendment 103, which provides for the inspection of multi-academy trusts, and this has considerable significance for the regulation of all academies. I must therefore make some wider points before I turn to amendments one, nine, three, D and E in the name of my noble friend Baroness Barran, to which I've put my name, and I must declare my interest as a former Ofsted chief Inspector who has advocated strongly for MAT inspection for many years, everyone's familiar with school inspection for over 30 years.

This was unequivocally framed by government as a public accountability mechanism to defend the interests of children and parents. The very last strands of support activity were removed from Ofsted more than a decade ago, so as to avoid any blurring and published inspection judgements and reports with real consequences are a powerful regulatory force precisely because it has real traction. This model has long been the subject of relentless hostility and efforts to undermine it by some within the sector. But the law relating to school inspections has not kept pace with the evolution of sector structures over the past 20 years.

The Academy trust model, which now goes back 20 years, places legal responsibility for a school unequivocally with the trust board, not with a school level governing body or an individual headteacher. But successive governments chose to keep inspection to school level while evolving a separate regulatory approach for trusts. And that separate approach broadly consists of private review within DfE of published and other data, and periodic private discussion between each MAT and the DfE regulatory team, with escalation to Ministers when necessary.

But in the main trust level, concerns are dealt with privately, except where the most serious failings justify terminating a funding agreement or acting against an individual. This is a mechanism that is highly susceptible to produce a capture of government. I do know of more than a few examples, and it creates an imbalance that feels unfair to many heads and those beneath them. As individual schools are publicly reported on. And there's also no clear dividing line between schools and trusts.

Trusts may choose to centralise many activities, including the choice of curriculum, lesson planning, teacher training and professional development, assessment, pastoral approaches and behaviour policies, as well as back office functions. A centralised map with 60 schools will have around 15 inspections a year, and in each of these inspectors must ask questions about decisions, some of which are not taken at school level, to form a rounded view of the quality of education and safeguarding in the school, and a judgement of school quality may have to encompass aspects that are not under the control of a headteacher, which of course feels unfair to those heads, and the current model does also make it particularly hard for government to intervene when a MAT is slightly underperforming across the board.

But no one school is severely failing. All this makes clear that a refresh is sorely needed, and here I'm only repeating what I've said publicly in the past. I genuinely welcome the government's decision to act. So turning to the detail, clause 193, in effect, creates a skeleton containing the powers and obligations to put in a system of MAT inspection. But no policy proposals have been published to explain the set of purposes. MAT inspections may be purely to facilitate accountability to government and to justify inspections at MAT level.

They may be intended to increase transparency for parents. They may be intended to function partly or entirely as a support mechanism for trusts. But we don't know, nor do we know how they're intended to interact with school inspections, whose purposes have also become blurred. Government no longer links to fine consequences to overall inspection judgements, which I believe and hear from many, has actually increased uncertainty and anxiety in the school sector. And government has also not clarified whether the policy purposes of school inspections have changed.

I infer that true education quality is not the highest priority for government because it's accepted. The current school inspection approach, which has startlingly removed all but a cursory scrutiny of education itself so as to make more time for specific government priorities such as attendance, belonging and now, of course, mobile phone policy enforcement. In so doing, government and Ofsted have intentionally, and in my view, unwisely made themselves blind to all the many ways that good education can be limited and compromised if school quality judgements are predicated too narrowly on outcomes.

This watering down of school inspection makes it even more important that the MAT inspection inspection model is well conceived, well defined, well understood and likely to be fully effective. It's also highly desirable for the judgements to be made independently of government of Ministers, if they're to have the legitimacy that they need as a basis for government intervention. Which brings me to amendments one nine, 3D and E. First, they seek to ensure that the necessary work of consultation, piloting and reporting is done before these sections are commenced and the full inspection regime begins.

This period could be used to calibrate the range of judgements needed and the corresponding range of regulatory purposes as regulatory interventions, and to clarify the purposes. The thresholds also need to be tested against realistic system improvement capacity so that this can be allocated effectively. And secondly, the amendments aim to create a coherent overall model that reflects the multilevel nature of MATs as well as the variety of organisational models they deploy. One trust may operate in a highly integrated way, with all major decisions and the finances controlled centrally, and local head teachers focussed on effective implementation of the central model.

Another trust, including many of the faith trusts, may operate a highly devolved model, leaving most matters to trusts and determining only aspects of faith related provision and perhaps core administrative systems and processes. At the moment, there's only limited evidence on the relative effectiveness of different models, at least as far as I know. The trust inspection may generate some good evidence, but in the absence of stronger evidence, inspection shouldn't force MATs into a particular operating model, as I know some fear.

And thirdly, the amendments ensure that inspection takes account of a MATs ability to manage schools efficiently as well as their education quality and other direct child facing aspects. This has the potential to simplify and unify the regulatory arrangements for trusts. There are parallels with the model used in the Netherlands, which has structures similar to multi-academy trusts, and there does need to be join up in the regulatory system. It's hard for government to make and sustain decisions if it's getting conflicting messages from different strands of monitoring.

I hesitate to say it, but overall judgements have their place. And finally, I would value the Minister's assurance that she will make explicit that the conception of quality and against which inspection is carried out should be grounded in a strong evidential foundation, entrusts as in schools, and that the regulatory framework should be revised whenever the accumulation of evidence points towards a change. My Lords, I.
23:18
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Portrait Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Labour)
-
-
Rise to. >> Speak to the amendments 193A and 193B in the name names of the Right Reverend Prelate, Bishop of Portsmouth and myself. These amendments are very simple, which seek to address a small technical omission regarding the inspection of multi-academy trusts when they are the proprietor of one or more schools with a religious character. When Ofsted inspect schools with religious character, one of the organisations they're required to notify of the outcome of inspection is the religious authority responsible for running the school.

And my noble friend, the Minister's amendment to introduce inspections of Multi the Academy trusts is welcome, my Lords, but I feel that the amendment does not replicate this duty of notifying religious authorities for these inspections. Multi-Academy trusts play an important role in creating and upholding the ethos and community in which schools with which religious character operate. So it is essential that the result of any inspection into the trusts which contains such schools must be shared with the relevant religious authority.

And as the right reverend Prelate and the Bishop of Portsmouth has already said, it's an issue around communication. I believe that these amendments will ensure that the inspection of multi-academy trusts, which contain schools with a religious character, is consistent with the individual inspection of those schools. I have worked closely with the Catholic Education Service and also with the Right Reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Portsmouth, in bringing these amendments to your Lordships House today. And I am sure that the representatives of other religious groups which run schools would also support such amendments.

So therefore, I would hope that my noble friend, the Minister, will be able to accept these amendments today or give her assurances that under the government's amendment, that relevant religious authorities will be notified about the results of multi-academy trust inspections when those trusts are the proprietors of schools under their denominational jurisdiction. And finally, I also support the other amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate 193C my Lord, may.
23:21
23:22
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 196A, which appears in my name, and also to amendment 197 in the name of the noble Lord Lord Storey, to which I also attach my name in the interests of the hour. I'm going to restrain myself for a lot of things. I think it is a great pity that we're doing this really important business at this hour. But the noble Lady, the Minister in introducing this group, talked about the need, which I think we've heard agreement from, from right across the house about the need to improve accountability of multi-academy trusts.

And the noble Lady said that accountability is not kept pace with the growth of MATs. And with that in mind, I'm going to actually start with amendment 197, which we haven't yet heard the formal introduction for. I won't go through it in detail, but just this is looking at the renumeration of chief executives of multi-academy trusts, and it includes the provision under parliamentary scrutiny to impose limits on that pay. Now, it might be a difficult job, but I think I'm about to shock the house.

Yes, at 11:23 p.m. a few days ago, education uncovered the website produced some figures on the pay of CEOs of multi-academy trusts. Not the biggest ones, but the group of the next biggest ones. The one from 11 to 25. In the ranking for the number of pupils, a £200,000, in fact, about £220,000 salary is becoming standard for these multi-academy trusts CEOs. And then you can add pension of about £50,000 This is significantly more than the Prime Minister is paid.

Now we have a fat cat pay problem right across our society. But here we are talking about money that's allocated public funds. That's supposed to be going to children's education, that's going to fat cat pay. Now, I said that education uncovered figure is for 2025 going to the largest trusts. I had to go back to a Schools Week investigation last year from last March, and that was looking at some of the highest pay and that a year ago, one of the multi-academy trusts, the CEO's pay, had crossed the £500,000 a year threshold.

Three more were more, more than £300,000 a year. The National Governance Association, unsurprisingly, told Schools Week that benchmarking seemed to be leading to inflationary pressures, something that I can see some noble Lords here who know quite a bit about the financial sector have seen happening, but it really is obscene that this is happening in our schools. And the Education Uncovered study shows that the in the larger trusts, they are spending more per pupil on these highly paid staff, unless per pupil on pupils in the classroom, than are smaller trusts and even more particularly in England, local authorities and local authority schools.

This is a huge problem of accountability, and I commend the noble Lord Lord Storey for bringing forward this amendment and seeking to deal with it. And I really cannot think of a reason why the government would not think this is a good idea. Now. I come now and very briefly, given the hour to my amendment 196 A and this follows attempts that I made at committee with the assistance of the National Education Union, to create something that allows schools to get out of this mess when they just fed up with it, allows parents who are fed up with multi-academy trusts that are not working.

We've seen particularly a lot of examples recently of multi-academy trusts imposing on local communities, on school communities, disciplinary rules that have caused a great deal of upset and concern and fear for the wellbeing of pupils, allowing a way for schools to get out of this system that's not working for them. What I did at committee was I brought forward the idea of an academy reversal order. It's very complex, given the fact that schools in multi-academy trusts no longer have their own legal entity.

But I made an attempt at doing that. I also made an attempt to say it was a duty of the Secretary of State to produce that. An order like that. OK. It's report. So what I've done with this amendment 1968 is to call for the government to create a duty for the government to create a report on the demand for the desirability of, and mechanisms for conversion of academy run schools to being maintained schools within two years of the act calling for a report.

This doesn't direct anything to happen. What it asks for is a direction for the government to think again in a bill that's already acknowledging that there is huge problems with this academy trust model that ends the presumption of all new schools, must seem to be academies. That removes the duties to force schools into multi-academy trusts. We're clearly heading in this direction. Let's get ahead of the game and prepare for a future where we put schools back under local Democratic control.
23:27
23:28
23:29
Baroness Morgan of Cotes Portrait Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-affiliated)
-
-
To rise. Very briefly to talk about these, this this group of amendments. >> And whilst I recognise the passion with which the previous passion with which the previous three speakers have spoken on CEO remuneration, I'm afraid I do not think that is the main problem in the education system. And I think that actually if we want really good people to head up multi-academy trusts to do one of the most important jobs in this country, which is educate the next generation, then we should pay them.

And if that means that the Prime Minister is underpaid, well, that's a separate debate that we should be having to recognise his leadership and anyone else who holds that position of the country. I want to just go back to amendment 193 and to to echo, actually the thanks from the noble Lady Baroness Morris of Yardley, because I'm not sure if it wins the prize for the longest set of amendments, but perhaps the speediest set of amendments, because we did have this debate at Committee stage, and there were voices from all sides of the House that recognised that putting in place an inspection regime for the proprietors of multi-academy trusts was something that was overdue.

It does make me respect that. Probably the department had these amendments somewhere ready to go when an opportunity presented itself, because we all spend a lot of our time asking the government to make amendments and are told, not now, not this bill, not quite yet. Indeed. I had a conversation with a noble Lady, the Minister like that just was it yesterday morning? It feels like longer ago. And we'll return to that next week. But I am impressed with how fast these amendments have been proposed.

That does, of course, mean that actually, as we've heard, because of the hour of we're debating this because the time these aren't going to get all the scrutiny that we would like to see. And that's why I do think that actually the amendments from the noble Baroness Baroness Barran amendment 193, about further consultation or work before these provisions come into effect would be extremely worthwhile. And I also wanted to echo one of the other questions that the question has been put to me by those from multi-academy trusts is what is the relationship between this inspection regime and the inspection of individual schools? Because whilst there are obviously some large academy trusts chains, there are also some much smaller ones.

And if they are trying to deal with rightly the inspection, particularly the first inspection of a multi-academy trust proprietorship, then actually what is the relationship between schools and how do you make sure that schools don't feel and multi-academy trusts don't feel they are being endlessly inspected and never allowed actually to get on with the job that we all want them to do, which is educating well, the next generation. I do just want to speak in support of amendment 194 as well, because I wasn't able to speak on clause 51 in the Committee stage debate.

This is about academy sponsorship. Now, I know from what we've just heard that not everybody is a fan of academies. Well, I am I am relentless in my support for them. I think we have finally seen the self, the self reinforcing self-improving school system that we want to see in this country. And my question would be that in many places, academy sponsorship is the only option. I am not sure what the other option is. I think amendment 194 has nobly attempted to put in place an answer.

If academy sponsorship is not available, but I would like to hear the Minister's reasons still for persisting with this view that actually we shouldn't be looking for good academy sponsors being the default, because that is what the academy chains I speak to feel most passionately about in terms of those who are successful, making sure that other schools are able to share in that success to. And finally, it would come as no surprise that I will oppose amendment 197. I think, as I say, there are other issues we should be debating in education other than recognising the enormous contribution made by senior leaders in education, in this case, perhaps the heads of multi-academy trust chains.

But I would much rather we talk about the quality of the education that our young people are getting than anything else, which is a distraction as amendment 197 is.
23:34
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'm like others. I really regret that we're debating these amendments so late because they are very important, and I will try and get to the my key points on this. Can I start by thanking the noble Baroness, the Minister for amendment 192, in relation to clause 50, which again addresses some of the concerns we raised about the scope of this at committee and again in the other place. But the main substance of this group, as we've heard, is the lengthy amendment 193, the prize winning 193, which would allow the government to introduce MAT inspection.

And we debated this at committee. It is curious that this bill has gone through all stages in the other place, and only now it. Reporter we are seeing this and some of the gaps that that reveals are highlighted in the right reverend Prelate. The Bishop of Portsmouth amendment and in my amendments 193D and E so we can see that in the breadth of drafting of this amendment, with so much left to secondary legislation, giving the Secretary of State extremely broad powers, which look to me like, rather than an amendment that was on the shelf, an amendment that was drafted at haste.

And officials kindly invited me in to talk about the amendment before Christmas. And they argued the case for giving the Secretary of State maximum flexibility. And as the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, said in an earlier group, we have talked about this ad nauseum and the government has acted to correct some of it. But this new clause goes in the wrong direction in relation to those powers. But I think the real thing is, if we think back to the introduction of the new school inspection regime, there was a huge consultation.

There was piloting of the approach, and now we're seeing it rolled out. And all my amendment really is asking in 193 is to do and mirror that and do exactly the same. I've suggested a focus in terms of the pilot, which would be to look at three groups of schools, those that are significantly sorry, MATs, which have groups of schools in the following categories one where they are significantly underperforming and where there might be a case for intervention, one where they would like to grow and take on other schools.

And quite rightly, the department would want reassurance that they have the skills to do that well. And then what? At this hour of the night, I can't think of any other word than a universal group. But to see whether there is a case at this point for universal MAT inspection alongside school inspection, because, you know, in a perfect world, one would have designed a new school inspection regime and a MATs inspection regime together so that you avoided some of the duplication that other noble Lords have pointed to.

I'd also be grateful when the noble Baroness comes to sum up whether she can confirm that there is not a plan to be inspecting single academy trusts, and if there is, what the point of that would be, and also that the government plans to reawaken or whatever you do to dormant legislation to inspect local authorities with regard to that school improvement function. I think if the government wants to look at school groupings, it should look at all school groupings rather than just one type of school groupings.

Turning to my amendment 194, and I thank very much my noble friend Baroness Morgan of Cotes for her support of this. I did an interview with Schools Week not so long ago, which probably only my children have read, but in fact, not even my children have read. But they asked me what was the element in the bill that I was most worried about. And it was this clause which will delay intervention in schools that Ofsted has found to be unable to meet the new standards and the intervention is required.

And when we debated this at committee, the Minister talked about the length of time for intervention. But she knows and probably some of the still some of the same cases are probably still running, that the very long cases typically reflect one of two things, or possibly both. One is where you have rural schools in very, very remote areas where there is no literally no other school or trust nearby who could take on and support the school adequately. And the second is where there's significant funding required from the department, particularly perhaps in relation to buildings or to bridge budget deficits if the school roll has fallen significantly.

And there's a lot of arm wrestling that goes on and the arm wrestling takes time. But the new rise teams aren't going to be able to address either of this type of case any faster than the previous system, and my amendment would avoid avoid delay. It would avoid judicial review. And most importantly, it would make sure that children were back in high performing schools as quickly as possible. I also agree completely with what my noble friend Baroness Coates said about amendment 197, and I hope with that that rather than having to test the opinion of the House, the noble Lady will come back with some more positive and constructive responses.
23:41
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Minister for Women and Equalities) (Labour)
-
-
Noble Lords, despite the lateness of the hour, I think that we have had a good discussion on these issues as part of Group ten, and I don't want to move the government amendments again. I want to turn to the amendments that have been discussed during the course of this debate. And I will start with the amendments 193A, 193B and 193C, tabled in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth and my noble friend, Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick, that relate to inspection of trusts, which include academies that are designated with a religious character for amendments 193A and 193B.

These propose the additional requirements for Ofsted to share trust inspection reports. What noble sorry, what the Right Reverend prelate and my noble friend described as important communication issues. I do recognise the importance of both informing the relevant religious authorities about trust level inspections, and of ensuring robust oversight of trust leaders in relation to developing and maintaining the religious character of faith based settings. In respect of amendment 193A, I hope that I can provide some reassurance to the Right Reverend that there is already a duty on Ofsted to inform religious authorities in advance of a routine trust inspection, and our provisions already include a duty for Ofsted to share reports of routine inspections with the trust, and the Secretary of State has a power to share them with persons it deems appropriate.

Ofsted has confirmed that it will always deem a religious authority that it has already informed about an inspection taking place as an appropriate person to receive a report, so I can assure noble Lords that religious authorities will always be sent. The report by Ofsted regarding amendment 193B, as religious authorities will always receive the full trust inspection report, setting out that a trust is not performing to an acceptable standard. They do not separately need to be notified about a poor inspection outcome.

I hope that, therefore, noble Lords will recognise that one amendments 1938 and 193B are not necessary. Turning to amendment 193C the current framework for inspecting denominational education and worship is already a complex mixture of statutory and non-statutory provisions, moving directly to a statutory framework for academy trusts at this stage risks adding further complexity in relation to that element of the inspection. It is important, therefore, that we take the time necessary to develop any future approach carefully, so that trust level inspection of denominational matters aligns with existing arrangements of this nature.

For individual settings and functions coherently with the wider inspection system, as the right reverend Prelate has identified, officials have discussed with officers from the Catholic Education Service and the Church of England Education Office. We are committed to working with the churches and other faiths to develop a non-statutory framework as an initial and constructive step ahead of considering opportunities for potential legislation in the future, and that work will include pilots which have been developed with faith bodies and trusts to pilot inspection of collective worship and denominational education.

Trusts with faith schools. I now turn to amendments 193 and 193E table by the noble Ladies Baroness Barran and Spielman. These amendments would require the government to carry out a full consultation, publish an impact assessment and lay that impact assessment before Parliament, before the new trust inspection regime could come into force, and to pilot a scheme of inspections. I recognise the shared interest across the House in ensuring that the implementation of academy trusts inspection is carefully planned and not rushed, and I want therefore reassure noble Lords on this point.

Legislation is just the first step in delivering a strong and effective trust inspection system. I have to say, some have given credit to the government for moving quickly, following the very convincing arguments that were made during committee led by my noble friend Lord Blunkett, but supported by noble Lords across this House that the government should introduce in this bill legislation that would enable us to make fast progress with this manifesto commitment. And we have done that and brought it back now at Report stage in as noble Lords have noticed, considerable length.

But we are also committed to working closely with the sector, to getting the detailed arrangements right. That legislative basis is the start of the process, so that the system delivers maximum benefit for children and young people. Government will work extensively with the sector to ensure that inspection is proportionate and fit for purpose. We will consult on the key elements of the regulations, giving stakeholders a meaningful opportunity to help shape how the inspection system will operate. We will also be assessing the impact of the changes we propose to implement in the usual way.

I can assure noble, my noble friend Baroness Morrison, the noble Lady Baroness Morgan of Ely, that these will be inspections of trust trusts, not schools, and that will be part of the issue, making that clear and ensuring that distinction will be part of the work that we will undertake. And in response to the noble Lady, Baroness, Baron, no, it wouldn't be appropriate, therefore, for trust inspections to to be done to single academy trusts. Ofsted will also conduct a full public consultation on its proposed inspection framework, informed by extensive sector engagement, including trialling approaches and inspection pilots, before routine inspections begin.

This carefully sequenced and considered approach
23:48
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
will ensure that the trust level inspection system is thoroughly tested, focussed on the right priorities and assessed for unintended consequences before inspections begin. It will also ensure that the system works effectively alongside school level inspection, and reflects the diversity of trust models, supporting, rather than constraining, innovation across the sector. Turning to amendment 194 tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Baron, which seeks to retain the duty to issue Academy orders for schools judged by Ofsted to be a category of concern, while introducing a limited exemption.

The noble Baroness rightly highlighted at committee that children in failing schools need urgent action. We agree where we differ is not on the importance of decisive intervention, but on whether retaining a duty to issue academy orders for all schools judged to be in a category of concern is always the swiftest or most effective route to improvement for pupils. As I stated at committee. Converting a school into a sponsored academy can in some cases be slow and complex, during which time pupils may remain in underperforming settings.

Clause 51 addresses that challenge by allowing the Secretary of State to act swiftly where structural change is not practical, or by deploying Rise teams to support schools judged by Ofsted to require significant improvement. But where there is leadership capacity to improve and this is the important point, alongside provision of rise support, where appropriate, we have been clear that Academy orders will continue to be issued to the worst performing schools, including by default, those placed in special measures and to other failing schools that do not improve after rise intervention.

And the noble Lady Baroness Barran highlighted her concern again that she raised at committee that repealing this duty and replacing it with a discretionary power would lead to delays due to increased legal challenges to decisions to intervene. But there is no compelling evidence for this assertion. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary because the previous government had a policy of issuing academy orders to coasting maintained schools, and it relied on a discretionary power to do so, not a duty. As a result of this policy, over 100 coasting maintained schools were converted into sponsored academies.

By January 2025. Sped up incidentally under this government. So in relation to these schools, there is no evidence of systemic delays to intervention due to legal challenges. The noble Baroness's proposal also is that we should publish school improvement plans for those where no suitable sponsor is available, and for this to be annually reported to Parliament. Whilst the government is committed to transparency, this would duplicate existing arrangements. Academy orders are already published and where Rise teams are deployed, improvement plans will be agreed between the Department and the responsible body concerned.

Turning to amendments 195196 and 248, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Storey. These amendments focussed on the processes surrounding the use of Academy orders and intervention powers. We share the noble Lords desire for strong sponsorship and clarity about the use of intervention powers, but the Department already operates a robust and well established process for matching failing schools with the right sponsor trust based on their expertise, capacity and proven track record of delivering rapid and sustained improvement. When an Academy order is made, that process is published and is underpinned by our commissioning guidance and the high quality trust framework, so it is not necessary to formalise it in legislation.

And that would in fact add delay at the point when swift intervention is most critical. Turning to amendment 196A, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Bennett, calling for a report on the demand for desirability of and potential mechanisms for converting academies back to local authority control. As I stated at committee, this proposal runs contrary to our policy direction. It is not true, as the noble Lady asserted, that the direction of travel is against multi-academy trusts. We have made that clear throughout the passage of this bill.

Reopening questions on converting academies to maintained schools risks diverting attention from the urgent task of supporting schools and raising standards for children, where mechanisms for addressing concerns are already in place. So we do not believe that this is the right approach. Turning to amendment 197, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Storey regarding the remuneration of chief executives of multi-academy trusts. Whilst we appreciate the noble Lords concern about transparency and value for money, implementing such regulations would mandate significant changes to current arrangements and would remove the autonomy that academy trusts have on chief executive pay under their funding agreements and the Academy Trust Handbook, existing expectations on setting executive pay are set out in the handbook.

Handbook trusts must ensure their decisions are robust, evidence based and justifiable, and the number of employees whose benefits exceed £100,000 are published on trust websites, which in most cases would include the chief executive. But as stated during committee, we are actively monitoring executive pay. We are engaging directly with trusts where remuneration is an outlier. Publishing details on Gov.uk for accountability and we will continue to review our approach to ensure proportionality and impact with those assurances. I hope that noble Lords feel able to withdraw their amendments, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move the amendment in my name. Question 192 be agreed to. As

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question 192 be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content contrary, not content. The content contrary, not content. The contents have it 193 Baroness May contents have it 193 Baroness May move formally. As an amendment to 193193A the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth not moved amendments Portsmouth not moved amendments 193B and c the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth not moved. Amendment 193D Baroness Barran.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the noble Baroness, the Minister said nearly everything that we were hoping to hear, that we were hoping to hear, perhaps she could also, in writing perhaps she could also, in writing after this, confirm that the purpose of MAT inspection and school inspection and the different school inspection and the different purposes will be set out clearly in the government's guidance. But with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the government's guidance. But with that, I welcome her reassurance. Not moved. Your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 193E Baroness Barran not moved. Amendment 193. The question is that amendment 193 be agreed to, as many of that opinion will say. Content contrary, not content, the contents have it. Amendment 194 Baroness Barran.
23:55
00:01
00:06
None Portrait Orders and regulations: Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2026 - motion to approve
-

Lord Storey not moved. Further consideration. Further consideration on report. Be now. Adjourn. Be adjourned.
00:06
00:06
00:07
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I beg to move that the House approves the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) regulations 2026, which were laid before the House on 15th December 2025. My Lords, I appreciate that people's enthusiasm for transitional relief on business rates at seven minutes past midnight might not be as keen as mine, so I will be as brief as possible. But it is necessary to set out the detail of the regulations before I discuss the regulations before us in detail, I do wish to briefly touch on the measures that were announced by the government yesterday, as this is relevant to the motion made.

Actually, it was the day before yesterday, but let's not split hairs as this is relevant to the motion made by the noble Lord Lord Jamieson, which I will address in full. In my opening statement yesterday, the government announced a further 15% relief for pubs and live music venues in 2627, on top of the support package announced at the budget. This will then be followed in 27, 28 and 2829 by a real terms freeze in the bills of these properties as a result of the intervention next year, around three quarters of pubs will see their bills fall or stay the same.

And I would add that the government published a definition of pub and live music venue, which local authorities will use in determining which properties in their area are eligible, and formal guidance for local authorities will be issued shortly. My Lords, these regulations provide for the business rates. Transitional relief as announced by the Chancellor at the budget. This scheme, provided over three years, gradually phases in large bill increases created by the 2026 revaluation. It also puts in place A1P transitional relief supplement for one year only in 2627 to help fund the relief provided.

These regulations are necessary because of the 2026 business rates revaluation. As of the 1st of April 26, the revaluation will update the rateable value of the 2 million non-domestic properties in England. Revaluation are an important and necessary part of the business rate system, where rateable values are updated to reflect market conditions. At the same time, the multipliers or tax rates are adjusted in response to the overall movement in the tax base. If the overall rateable value increases at the revaluation, it has a downward pressure on the tax rates and vice versa.

That is why the multipliers for next year will be at a lower rate than they are currently. This does not necessarily mean that bills go down at revaluation. Some ratepayers bills go down, some stay the same and some go up. The government fully understands that for some ratepayers, seeing increases, support is required to help them move gradually to their new liability over time. That is why the government has introduced a support package to help ratepayers with their new liability, and these regulations are part of that support package to return to the points raised by the noble Lord Jamieson.

In his motion, it's important to clarify factual point. These regulations do not alter or reduce the current 2526 retail, hospitality and leisure relief or other small business reliefs within the business rates system such as small business rate relief. So voting against these regulations would in fact prevent us giving transitional relief support to ratepayers. But to address the broader point made by the noble Lord, the retail, Hospitality and Leisure Relief was introduced to support eligible ratepayers during Covid. It was an atypical measure for an atypical period of time.

This government has been clear first at the budget 2024, then through its passage of primary legislation, the 2025 Non-Domestic Rating Act, to create the new multipliers that, as part of its broader work to transform the business rates system, it would end the temporary, financially unsustainable Covid era relief and replace it with a permanent lower tax rate for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties. The government has done that through the introduction of the new permanent retail, hospitality and leisure multipliers for qualifying properties with rateable values below £500,000.

However, the government is well aware that a lower tax rate does not necessarily equate to a lower rate liability. Some ratepayers, particularly those in sectors which were closed due to Covid at the 1st of April 2021, the antecedent valuation date for the 2023 revaluation have seen substantial rateable value growth. This was expected as normal economic activity has been restored since Covid. It is right and important that the previous Covid era relief is unwound, but the pace at which we do that is just as important.

And that's why at the budget, the government also announced the expanded Supporting Small Business Relief scheme, the supporting Small Business Scheme provides relief to ratepayers losing some or all of certain reliefs as a result of the revaluation, including the 2526 retail, hospitality and leisure relief. That scheme caps bills increases for eligible properties at whichever is the higher of £800, or the relevant transitional relief percentage cap. But importantly, the capped increase is calculated from a base liability, including the effect of the eligible reliefs providing enhanced support to enable these ratepayers to transition to their new liability over time.

And as I set out the government, following engagement with stakeholders, went further yesterday for pubs and live music venues announcing additional support. On top of this budget package. The regulations before us today do not deliver the small the supporting small Business relief scheme. All measures announced yesterday. These are provided by guidance that is published by my department, which enables local authorities to apply these additional reliefs. Nonetheless, they are important context to remember and are pertinent to the points raised by the noble Lord as we consider the draft instrument before us.

This instrument delivers the Transitional Relief Scheme element of the government's support package and will protect properties from large overnight increases in their business rate bills. As a result of the revaluation. It will cap bill increases by a set percentage each year. For example, in 2627. The caps within the transitional relief scheme are 5% for small properties, 15% for medium properties and 30% for large properties. These are the same year won caps as set at the 2023 revaluation. These caps are applied before changes in other reliefs and local supplements.

Therefore, changes in actual bills may differ from those caps. At this revaluation. The transitional relief scheme will provide more generous caps for large properties in years two and three, compared to previous re-evaluations. The caps in year two and three will also rise with inflation, as has been the case previously, the noble Lord has raised that no public consultation was undertaken prior to the laying of these regulations, as was set out in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the draft instrument. Transitional. Transitional Relief was last consulted on in 2022.

In its consultation response in 2022, the government at the time stated given the upwards caps have been consistently retained for consecutive schemes and in general it is only the level of support provided that will vary. The government will no longer consult on the scope of future transitional relief schemes as a matter of course. That response also stated that future schemes would be developed taking into account revaluation outcomes, to ensure that the support provided continues to be effectively targeted at ratepayers.

Facing the largest bill increases the steps this government has taken to redesign the scheme, such as providing more generous support in years two and three for the largest ratepayers and calculating support from the relevant multiplier. Each ratepayer pays are two examples of how we have done this. Turning to the other element that these regulations cover, the one P transitional Relief supplement will only apply for one year from the 1st of April 2026. The supplement helps to fund the transitional relief scheme, and means the government has been able to provide a greater level of support to properties, seeing large increases.

The impact of the supplement will add only 2 to 3% to affected ratepayers bills in 2627, and ratepayers whose bills are capped by transitional relief or supporting small business relief will not pay the supplement on top of their capped bill. It is important to note that the precise increase in bills next year and future years of this rating list will vary depending on the individual circumstances of each ratepayer and, in later years, inflation. However, the caps within the scheme ensure that large increases are moderated, providing ratepayers time to adjust to their new bill, as opposed to seeing a very large increase on the 1st of April.

Taken together with the other measures announced at the budget, the government's intervention on business rates will ensure that most properties seeing bill increases next year will see them capped at 15% or less, or £800 for the smallest properties, transitional relief is calculated and applied automatically by local government. Ratepayers do not have to apply for it. I hope noble Lords will therefore join me in supporting the draft regulations, and I beg to move.
00:17
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah. >> Yeah. >> The question is that this motion be agreed to. Amendment Lord be agreed to. Amendment Lord Jamieson. My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. I rise to speak to this motion in my name. At first glance, this Statutory Instrument may appear technical and relatively uncontroversial, with transitional relief also. But in reality, for many businesses, particularly in hospitality and leisure, the substantial underlying increase in business rates is very damaging.

In fact, in many ways it can be considered to be the straw that, so to speak, breaks the camel's back. Our high streets, our pubs, hotels and restaurants. Indeed, the whole of the hospitality and leisure sector are already under severe strain. And yet this government, which claims that its number one priority is economic growth, has instead pursued a series of policies that systematically undermine one of the country's most important employment intensive and community focussed sectors.

This government has abandoned small business, and nowhere is that abandonment clearer than its announcement to business rates in the budget. Increases in business rate cannot be considered in isolation. It comes on top of a jobs tax through higher National Insurance contributions, which have substantially increased the cost of employment and disproportionately hit labour intensive businesses, particularly those that rely on part time workers. Where national insurance was extended further down the the rung for hospitality. This is not an abstract accounting change.

It is a direct tax on jobs. It comes alongside a sharp increase in minimum wage. Now, while we all want people to earn more money, and rightly so, wage increases must be affordable if businesses are to survive. This is a particular challenge for the hospitality and leisure sector, which employs a high proportion of younger workers, many of them working part time. The minimum wage for an 18 year old has risen by around 45% over the past two years. And now, on top of all of this, we have rising business rates, and analysis from UK hospitality shows that the average pub will face an increase of around 15% in business rates next year.

Admittedly, prior to the recent announcements, with those increases compounding over time. By 20 2829, the typical pub will be paying around £7,000 more per year, with a cumulative impact approaching 13,000 over the next three years. Hotels face an even more dramatic increase. Average bills are expected to rise by nearly 29,000 next year, reaching well over 110,000 a year by 20 2829, with a cumulative additional burden exceeding 200,000 for many operators, particularly outside of London, these figures are simply unsustainable.

Now, let me illustrate this with a concrete example. My local pub faces a cumulative increase in costs of around £50,000 as a result of recent changes, of which around £10,000 comes from business rates alone. That's on a turnover of £800,000. Now this would be bad enough in isolation, but alongside this we have food price inflation of over 4%, including an alarming 30% increase in beef prices and higher utility bills. Consumers themselves are tightening their belts, meaning higher prices lead to lower volumes and many pubs are struggling just to stand still.

Now, traditionally, Christmas is where you make the money that helps you survive the winter. But talking to my local pubs, they're finding their profitability in December has dropped dramatically and they will no longer be able to cope through the winter. The inevitable result is closures, reduced operating hours, fewer staffs and pubs shutting 1 or 2 days a week. This matters because pubs are not just about businesses, they are community anchors. They provide social value, local employment and vitality to our towns and villages.

Like many people, my first job was as a part time Saturday job in the retail and leisure sector. These are crucial jobs, giving youngsters their first experience of work and the first step on the jobs ladder. This government seems determined to remove that opportunity. My Lords, the consequences of this approach are entirely predictable. Without urgent action and not just a temporary measure. It is estimated that more than 500 pubs were closed this year alone, with the loss of jobs, investment and vital community assets that will inevitably follow.

And yet, instead of clarity, businesses are offered speculation. The Chancellor chose to signal another reversal the 14th U-turn by this government. Rather than offer clarity to Parliament, the Chancellor chose to signal it at Davos and in subsequent announcements by availing a targeted support package for pubs and live music venues worth over 80 million a year. This relief is time limited and confined to pubs, while hotels, restaurants and the wider hospitality sector remain excluded from this concession. Now that's in the context of a 3.5 billion increase in business rates.

The noble Baroness, the Minister, talked about it going up in some cases and down in other cases. Well, predominantly it's going up. And as Michael Kill, the chief executive of the Night Time Industries Association, said, this is little more than a drop in the ocean. My Lords, it is striking that the Chancellor appears not to absorb the lessons of the 2025 budget on that occasion, as on this one, the government allowed rumour and conjecture to run ahead of policy, creating weeks of damaging uncertainty before detail was finally provided.

That uncertainty has been a major factor in suppressing economic growth. What makes this situation all the more remarkable is the government's selective enthusiasm for certainty when it comes to public sector unions, Ministers have shown themselves perfectly willing to offer generous, multiyear settlements, providing stability and predictability, and doing so without meaningful conditions attached. The government will claim that the measures announced by the previous government on business rates were temporary, as the noble Minister did, linked solely to the pandemic.

That's not correct. These reliefs stemmed from a 2019 manifesto commitment and reflected a continuing policy of choice, not a short term emergency response. The government can try and point to the timing of valuations, as the noble Minister did during the pandemic, to explain volatility. But if this were a genuine reform, the revaluation would be broadly revenue neutral. As I said, it's going to raise 3.5 billion extra, a 10% increase in the first year alone, with further increases built in thereafter.

It's nothing more than a stealth tax. Finally, my Lords, the House should note the uncomfortable contrast between the treatment of small business and the treatment of the Treasury itself. While local pubs are facing rising bills, the business rates at One Horse Guards Road, the home of the Exchequer, are set to fall by nearly 300,000. And the two Marsham Street, housing many major government departments, including the Noble Department. Business rates will fall by over 1 million. The Treasury is happy to cushion itself, while small businesses are left to absorb the shock.

This House should regret the passage of this Statutory Instrument and urge the government to rethink an approach that damages confidence, undermines growth and places an ever greater burden on the very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

businesses our country depends. Lord Jamieson. The original.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original. Question was that the regulations laid before the House on 15th of December, 2025 be on 15th of December, 2025 be approved, since when an amendment has been moved by Lord Jamieson at the end to insert the words set out the end to insert the words set out on the Order Paper. The question I therefore have to put is that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment be agreed to. My Lords, this is the last speech I shall be making after
00:26
00:26
00:27
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, before I respond to the regret motion, can I just thank the noble Lord Stone for all his work as the whip of the Liberal Democrat group? I'm very grateful to him for everything he's done and I'm I know he'll continue to contribute in the House, but we're very grateful for what you've done in in that role. So thank you, my Lords. Quite honestly, as the it was the party opposite that sat on their hands as our high streets crumbled around them for 14 years.

It's I find this simply astonishing. And the selective memory on Covid measures again is quite baffling to me. The measures were put in as a response to the situation in Covid, so I'm going to respond to some of the points that the noble Lord made, but I do so in the hope that at some point, the those who were part of the previous government will have a bit of humility about the fact that we've had to come in and sort all this out, because it was left in such a mess when we took over in 2024.

In relation to the noble Lords comments on stealth tax, the retail, hospitality and leisure relief introduced by the previous government in 2020 is unsustainable and it was always temporary in nature. We've ended the uncertainty of that relief and replaced it with permanently lower tax rates for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties. We have done this in a way that is financially responsible and sustainable. By funding this support from within the business rate system via the high value multiplier for ratepayers with a rateable value of £500,000 and above.

In relation to further support for high streets. As I set out in my opening speech, the government's introduced permanently lower multipliers and we've also provided an expanded supporting small business rate relief scheme to help those ratepayers gradually move from the 20 2526 relief to the new tax rates by moderating their bill increases over the next three years. And we went further by the announcements yesterday with the additional 15% release for pubs, live music venues on top of the budget package. The government's undertaking other work to rejuvenate our high streets.

The £5 billion pride in place funding a suite of tools to support communities to improve their high streets, including high street rental auctions, community right to buy and work to streamline compulsory purchase process to help local authorities regenerate high streets. And as indicated by the government in the other place, later this year, we will bring forward a high street strategy to reinvigorate our communities, work with businesses and representative bodies, and we will be working with them as we develop the strategy.

The government will also explore further loosening planning rules to benefit pubs, helping them add new guest rooms or expand their main room without local planning applications. And we are more than doubling the hospitality support fund with £10 million worth of funding over three years. Finally, the government knows that despite the support provided, many high streets are still facing real pressures from changing shopping habits to higher costs. And there is no single quick fix. That's why in our high street strategy, we will aim to reinvigorate communities, and we will work with all of the sector to pull that together.

And the noble Lord made a number of comments about pubs, and we recognise that pubs are the heart of our communities. In fact, when I went to my local pub the week before last, I couldn't get in. That wasn't because they wouldn't let me in, as I know some conservative members have said it was because it was absolutely packed to the gunnels and they didn't have any more space in there, so I couldn't get in there. There are other hostelries available in Stevenage, luckily, so I went elsewhere, but they are very much at the heart of our communities.

We want them to thrive and since the pandemic, they face tough conditions. We know that and as the industry has said repeatedly, this isn't about one issue, but it's a range of challenges, including rising costs. Now, the noble Lord admitted that his figures were before the package that was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor yesterday and as well as the package she introduced, followed by a real terms freeze in bills for 27, 28 and 2829, and as a result, next year around three quarters of pubs bills will fall or remain static.

Wider hospitality businesses will continue to be eligible for the support package as announced at the budget, including the new local multipliers and the transitional package to ensure bill increases are capped annually to enable ratepayers to move gradually to their new liability. So the. As the noble Lord raised the issue about hotels and restaurants, the government is listening to stakeholders recognising there are questions to be asked and answered with regard to the valuation methodologies for both pubs and hotels, and that's why we've committed to review the methodology used to value these types of properties.

My Lords, in conclusion, this Statutory Instrument delivers on the transitional Relief scheme as announced by the Chancellor at the budget, a very important part of the broader package of support announced to help ratepayers. It would not do any good for our pubs, hotels and other hospitality venues to not pass this transitional relief scheme. So I beg to move.
00:33
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Yes. the Minister, for response? And before I comment on it, can I also thank the noble Baron Lord Stoneham for his work as a Liberal Democrat whip? And I'm slightly envious that he won't be here after midnight. I fear that me and several of us will be here after midnight many more be here after midnight many more times in the future. Not this evening. It wasn't anyway. Shall we avoid having a little argument about whether this is dinner break business or not, and try and focus on what we're trying to do tonight? I would make the comment here.

And the noble Lord stoner made the comment that focusing on warehouses, I would just make the comment, there are twice as many retail premises that will be hit by that change in tax, as will warehouses will be hit. Anyway, if I can get on to this, you know, for my first comment, it is regrettable that we're debating this so late at night. This is an important issue. The impact of business rates and other factors on our retail, hospitality and leisure centre.

So it is disappointing that it hasn't had the debate that it deserves. The noble Baroness, the Minister again threw out a large number of numbers and obfuscation and claimed selective memory. Well, you know, I can share Barb's across the benches but don't really feel that that's the point of tonight. The point of tonight is to raise the plight of our hospitality and leisure venues, and I use pubs as an example here, and they really are in deep trouble, and they are in worse trouble now than they were two years ago by a very substantial region.

And I worry that this government is continuing to undermine them. However, I do recognise the late hour and what I would like to do rather than take this to the vote, is to invite the noble Baroness, the Minister, to my local pub, which is only a 40 minute drive from Stevenage, so that she can hear firsthand of the difficulties that are faced by pub owners in Central Bedfordshire. At least I'm glad that pubs and Stevenage is doing well. But with that,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recognising the late hour, I withdraw. Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn. Amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Question is the. Motion your original motion?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Motion your original motion? Thank you. Sorry. The. So the original

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry. The. So the original motion should be agreed to as many motion should be agreed to as many of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page