Lords Chamber

Tuesday 3rd February 2026

(began 5 hours, 17 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
14:38
None Portrait Introduction(s): Baroness Teather; Lord Hobby
-

Charles Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the Grace Charles III, by the Grace of Charles III, by the Grace of God Charles III, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of other realms and territories. King, head of the Commonwealth. Defender of the Faith to all Lords, spiritual and temporal, and all other subjects whatsoever to whom these presents shall come. Greeting. Know ye that we of our special grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958, and of all other powers, in that behalf us enabling do by these presents advance, create, and prefer our trusty and well beloved Sarah Louise Teather to the state degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness Teather of Broughton in our County of Leicestershire, and for us, our heirs and successors do appoint, give and grant unto her the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness Teather to have and to hold unto her for her life, willing and by these presents granting for us our heirs and successors, that she may have, hold, and possess a seat, place, and voice in the parliaments and public assemblies and councils of us, our heirs and successors within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons, and also that she may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, Preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed, or, as they do at present, use and enjoy.

In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent witness ourself at Westminster in the forenoon of the 27th day of January, in the fourth year of our reign, by sign-manual.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I, Sarah Baroness Teather, do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors Charles, his heirs and successors

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the grace Charles III, by the grace of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles III, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other realms and territories. King, head of the Commonwealth, defender of the Faith to all Lords, spiritual and temporal, and all other our subjects. Whatsoever to whom these presents shall come. Greeting. Know ye that we of our especial grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958, and of all other powers, in that behalf us enabling do by these presents advance, create, and prefer our trusty and well-beloved Russell Keith Hobby, commander of our most excellent Order of the British Empire, to the state degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Hobby of Belmont in our London Borough of Sutton.

And for us, our heirs and successors do appoint, give and grant unto him the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Hobby to have and to hold unto him for his life willing, and by these presents granting for us our heirs and successors, that he may have, hold and possess a seat, place, and voice in the parliaments and public assemblies and councils of us, our heirs and successors within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons, and also that he may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, Preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed, or, as they do at present, use and enjoy.

In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent witness ourself at Westminster in the forenoon of the 30th day of January, in the fourth year of our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sign-manual. I. Russell Lord Hobby, do solemnly, sincerely, and truly solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, given My Lords, given the My Lords, given the public interest and for the convenience of
14:50
14:50
14:50
None Portrait Tributes to Lord Wallace of Tankerness
-

his intention to retire from the House, effective from 4th February. I will formally notify this to the House tomorrow in the usual way. Tributes to the Lord Wallace of Tankerness.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, many of us aspire to be a good politician, to do good be a good politician, to do good and be a good person. More times than not, we fall short. Jim Wallace was a good man who saw his role in life to do good things, and he did. And they will last with great sorrow. We have been denied the opportunity of hearing a valedictory speech in this House valedictory speech in this House from Jim. He would have been characteristically modest, but we can perhaps be a little immodest on his behalf as a now profoundly missed absent friend from his early political days in the lowlands of Scotland, he triumphed in the most northerly.

When he was elected, many said he was the MP for Jo Grimond seat. But in short order we referred to Jim Wallace's Orkney and Shetland as MP MSP and peer. He saw serving in Parliament as the means by which good things can be done, not the end in itself. He was what a parliamentarian should be. When speaking in Parliament Hall on the day of the opening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999. Jim was achieving his ambition and the dreams of many in delivering what Gladstone could not.

Essentially, before, he said to all those newly elected MSPs, as the people's representatives, we should never forget the hopes kindled by this historic opportunity. He approached his role to meet those hopes as the first Liberal in office since the Second World War, with zeal, land reform, law reform, social reform, education reform, prison reform, radical but workable and all have endured. None reversed. Jim was a reformer, but he knew for reform to last, it had to be done well.

He said of the new Holyrood our Parliament must be open and inclusive, willing to consult and willing to listen. That sentiment embodied his own approach to politics. Jim could be exceptionally partisan, though, but only with football. A determined Bluenose supporter of Glasgow Rangers. He was dutifully but distractedly carrying out one of his last duties as deputy First Minister, before succeeded by my noble friend Lord Stephen in May 2005, at the launch of the Promoting Unst Renewable Energy project.

On a day ironically too windy for anything to work, he was distracted as it was unknown to him who was winning the Scottish League. But as his then private secretary subtly gave the thumbs up during the Non-switching on event. Jim then became, in the words of his private secretary, the happiest I've ever seen him. Jim was a very confident liberal, but very comfortable with others who weren't. He felt co-operating with others didn't diminish his position or dilute his beliefs. Rather, it allowed progress to be made for the better end.

Agreement with others for Jim was to get traction. Longevity. We all knew reaching agreement was Jim's strength, but he approached it always from a granite set of principles. I once discussed a tricky time in the Scottish Parliament on a controversial law reform measure, and he said to me, the test is when you defend the human rights of the people you hate. Although that word was never associated with Jim, his words have become my test. When he gave the first Charles Kennedy Memorial Lecture, he mourned the loss of a great friend prematurely.

In the lecture, he remarked on their close friendship. There was much camaraderie, much political discussion and analysis, even intrigue and much fun. The same for us with you, Jim. Jim was literally admirable, a political determination tempered by real kindness, a serious of purpose, sweetened by wry humour. Jim would tell of his period as justice Minister in 2002, when Nelson Mandela visited the Lockerbie bomber in jail, and at a global press conference, criticised the way he was being kept and by extension, Jim himself, on hearing the rather worrying condemnation of Jim by the world's most venerated man, his teenage daughter said.

Did Nelson Mandela just attack dad? That's cool. Engaging in a policy discussion with Jim was a thrilling and often quite intimidating experience. Prodigious intellect, phenomenal memory, confidence of argument, and the ability to deploy cutting wit like a sharpened ski. And do you need it to be on your game or your game was lost? As I learnt on too many occasion, I would start off fully confident of my argument and not long after accepting an early defeat, I would just pour lots more whisky and would enjoy the man and admire his abilities so comfortably.

Warn those in law, civil service and politics would see the same. He excelled in company while never dominating it, and for those of us who knew him well, his ability to doze off mid discussion, awaken and display his remarkable acuity as before was a skill to behold. Jim loved serving as moderator and said that he was more in awe in addressing the Kirk's General Assembly than any of the three parliamentary chambers he mastered. On taking office as moderator, he said at all levels, and not least in our upper echelons, we should be ready to take risks and do what is right for Jim.

The risk would be calculated, prepared for, researched, tested. But that preparation didn't dent the determination for boldness of thought and action. He led my Scottish party, he led government, led the Kirk and in law, and he also led these benches not by diktat. Jim knew this to be a futile exercise for a group of liberals, but through intellect, argument, respect and a reasoned, methodical approach, we were lucky to have a colleague we admired, but one who made it easy to love him to.

John Buchan wrote of another great Scot, words which were also appropriate for Jim perfectly honest, perfectly fearless and perfectly true. I grieve for Rosie, Claire and Helen, and the grandchildren who will have so many years ahead without Jim. But I say with love, we are ever so grateful that you allowed us to share Jim in our lives. Jim was a good politician and a good person who strove for and did good. The country is better and lives are improved as a result of what he did.

He was the best of examples of how politics can and should be the most honourable of callings. His faith was deep, and he knew that when his time had come, he would be going to a good place. That time is the wrong time. Far too soon a time. But that place is now extremely lucky to have him here.
14:58
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I think the noble Lord Purvis made a very powerful, heartfelt tribute. And I think in his words, we all pictured the man that we grew to admire in this house, paying tribute to friends and colleagues who have passed is never easy. When their passing is so sudden, unexpected and before their time. Our sense of loss is profound. We had no idea when Jim spoke in the House last December. That would be the last time we heard him here, and Lord Wallace was widely respected and held in great affection, and his loss is acutely felt.

Earlier last year, he spoke in the Hereditary Peers Bill and as a long standing elder and a former moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, he played an active, helpful role in the Church of Scotland. Lord High Commissioners Bill won a controversial bill. The other had the support of the entire House, and yet his approach and tone was exactly the same in each thoughtful, level headed and wise. Indeed, in that great way Jim had with words, he ended his contributions on the Church of Scotland Bill with reference to the historic stain that the Bill removed, allowing Roman Catholics to hold the office of High Commissioner, and he was looking forward to playing an active role as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, where his legal background and sound judgement would have been a real asset.

My Lords, a true believer in devolution, as we've heard, he was always willing to work across party boundaries and engage more widely to make progress. Lord Robertson of Port Allen spoke of the admiration of how they work together to meet the challenge of bringing the Scottish Constitutional Convention to a consensus, no easy feat. The disparate nature of the various parties, churches and civil society meant this wasn't going to be easy, and Jim's acute political and legal skills, alongside his gentle, engaging manner, was a formidable combination.

They succeeded because they were of one mind, and I am told they even decided the size of the Scottish Parliament over the late Lord Kamall dinner table. My Lords, following the establishment of the Scottish Party Scottish Parliament, he went on to a distinguished and valued deputy to three first Ministers, including the noble Lord McConnell, as well as twice acting as First Minister, acting First Minister. Those of us who worked alongside him had nothing but praise my Lords. The role of a deputy isn't always an easy one, and to serve in that role to three different First Ministers shows the acumen and value he brought to that role as an MP, an MSP, a Minister and a peer.

His values were embedded in his faith and in his politics. A true liberal progressive who was active in his church and community in Orkney, even singing in the church choir, the church being the oldest church in Scotland and the most northerly cathedral in the UK. Saint Magnus, although I'd been an MP at the same time as Jim, I only really got to know him when we were both leaders of our respective groups and opposition. I have to say I hadn't realised what a great sense of humour he had with that infectious laugh.

At one point I thought we discovered a family connection in that my step grandfather was also a Wallace from Orkney, but it was too long ago to prove the connection. But I quite liked the idea of our being long lost cousins who wouldn't have. My Lords will really miss him. On behalf of all on the Labour benches, I offer our heartfelt condolences to Jim's wife, Rosie, his daughters, his grandchildren, his party colleagues and my Lords, to his many close friends in Westminster and in Scotland.
15:02
Earl Howe Portrait Earl Howe (Conservative)
-
-
Yes. benches, I should like to add my tribute to the late noble and learned Lord Lord Wallace of Tankerness and to extend our sincere condolences to his wife and children, his friends and indeed those colleagues closest to him in this House. Lord Wallace is extraordinary. Record as a dedicated public servant was not only long standing, but also wide ranging, coming to political consciousness in his early teens, he campaigned for the Scottish Liberals in the 1970s, eventually being elected to the other place to succeed, as we've heard, Jo Grimond in representing the islands of Orkney and Shetland.

He went on to lead the Scottish Liberal Democrats, helping to design the blueprint for devolution and steering the party through the 1997 referendum campaign in the new Scottish Parliament. He was appointed as the first ever Deputy First Minister, and indeed served on two occasions as the leader mentioned as acting First Minister. During that early heady period of Home Rule. Later, following his translation to Your Lordships House, a place he termed the Elysian Fields of British politics, he earned a further crown when he succeeded Lord McNally as leader of the Liberal Democrat peers.

As a junior Minister, I had the privilege and pleasure of working alongside Jim during the years of coalition government when he served as Advocate General for Scotland, a role for which he was surely typecast. He was at all times, even at stressful times, modest, calm, congenial and genuinely collegiate, as well as being politically and professionally surefooted. Those skills were born of an acute intelligence. He possessed a wonderful knack of getting straight to the nub of a matter and setting out his arguments in a very few words, without ever seeming impatient.

As has been noted in several obituaries over recent days, he was someone who was genuinely liked by people of all political persuasions, and who was known for his ability never to let party get in the way of constructive dialogue someone whose values, as he said himself, were grounded in his religious faith. His father was an elder at Annan Old Parish Church, and he himself was an elder and member of the choir at Saint Magnus Cathedral, Kirkwall. In 2021, he served the Church of Scotland as the moderator of its General Assembly during the pandemic, and for this period set aside his political affiliations.

My Lords, with the death of Jim Wallace, the Liberal Democrat Party and this House have lost a very valued friend and colleague. He will be greatly missed.
15:05
Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Earl of Kinnoull (Crossbench)
-
-
EIA. >> My Lords, with a heavy heart, I rise on behalf of these benches to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord Lord Wallace of learned Lord Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and to extend our condolences to his wife, Rosie and family. His courtesy and genial nature was at the core of his approach to everything. In a record that spanned many decades and had so many facets, we were the third legislative chamber to have benefit from his wisdom and gentle approach arriving, as has been noted off the back of great success in the Commons and the Scottish Parliament, he also proved a most canny coalition government partner in Scotland.

He became Scotland's first Deputy First Minister in 1999, having negotiated various to the Liberal Democrat priorities into that first Scottish Government's programme. In the Holyrood election of 2003, Liberal Democrat polling numbers actually rose, not always their experience following a period of coalition. Jim remained as First Deputy Minister, Deputy First Minister and was able again to negotiate his priorities into the coalition agreement of that second government, and after stepping back from frontline Scottish Government and standing down as an MSP, he came here.

And here I pause as I want to reflect on Jim as a man of faith, the Church of Scotland has had a moderator since 1562, John Knox being the first. Not sure moderator was the right word for him. Moderators generally serve for a year. In 464 years, there have only been three moderators who were not Ministers of the Kirk, one of whom served only for a month. And Jim was our moderator. As Lord Lord Hay said, in 2021, a photograph at the opening of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland that year shows four obviously very happy people at the front door of church House in Edinburgh, and they were the Queen's representative that year, Prince William, Jim and Rosie and Nicola Sturgeon.

And to be able to bring warm and genuine smiles to those faces simultaneously was surely Jim's magic and some improvement on John Knox's approach. Needless to say, his year was a great success. Jim had become moderator because of his capacity as an elder of Saint Magnus Cathedral in Kirkwall. And this brings me to Orkney, not far from Kirkwall is Tankerness. As said, Jim represented Orkney for 18 years, in the Commons, for eight years in the Scottish Parliament and frankly, for another 18 years here in our Parliament in Orkney.

He was immensely popular and passionate. And here, actually, I will take a loop in that I once went to to buy a set of bagpipes about three years ago in Glasgow, and in the bagpipe shop, I met someone who had come from or who had been born in Orkney, and he's a very well known piper indeed in Scotland, and gone to bagpipe shop because he was an athlete, and I'd get a discount and, and he said immediately, did I know Jim Wallace? So I said yes, absolutely.

And he told me just how popular Jim was in, in, in Orkney. But anyway, he was immensely popular. He was passionate and he was genuinely an Orcadian. I close with his words said in December in Saint Magnus's cathedral at the 50th anniversary celebrations of the Orkney Islands Council, and he said so what have I concluded from my experiences of representing Orkney and working with councillors and successive governments? In a nutshell, it is people that matter.

Good guidance for us all. Yes my Lord, from these benches I associate my comments and condolences with those who previously spoken. Lord Wallace was
15:10
Lord Bishop of Manchester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)
-
-
kind, welcoming and generous to new bishops joining this House. Both he and his wife, Rosie, are and his wife, Rosie, are extraordinary people, and he in particular has made a significant impact on shaping the very culture impact on shaping the very culture and society in Scotland we see today across the whole Trinity. If I may use a word dear to him of law, politics and church. His two main belief systems were indeed the belief systems were indeed the church and politics.

They supported each other, and although he never, as we've heard, served as a Minister in the religious sense, he was ordained. He was an elder. And many across Orkney and beyond have reported how pertinent and encouraging his sermons and homilies were. He took his spiritual duties especially seriously, never compromising his faith to his other priorities, was notable for fulfilling Sunday Elders duty at St Magnus Cathedral, even during parliamentary election campaigns. I'm not sure what his party machine thought of that, but has been mentioned already, he once remarked.

He found the Church of Scotland General Assembly more awe inspiring to address than the House of Commons. I trust he is now debating in an even more inspiring chamber than any earthly one. And whilst I'm unconvinced that any of us on these benches would be quite the same view when comparing Parliament to the Church of England General Synod, it's perhaps that generosity which underlines why one political reporter notably described him as Scotland's favourite uncle.
15:11
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale Portrait Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Labour)
-
-
I'm very grateful for the. >> Follow these eloquent tributes on all sides to my friend Lord Jim Wallace, and to extend my sympathy Wallace, and to extend my sympathy to Rosie, Helen, Claire and the family following his tragic death last week. I am also very grateful to have spent four years of my life with him as my Deputy First Minister, and for all that we were able to do together. The then Jim Wallace co-led the Scottish Constitutional Convention with the noble Lord, my noble friend Lord Robertson.

I am sure that he would agree that without the input, the determination, the pragmatism and the principle of Lord Wallace, this constitutional convention would not have produced the scheme that became the Scottish Parliament and united Scotland behind the biggest constitutional change this country had seen since universal suffrage. He co-led the yes campaign in a referendum to secure that parliament, and in 1999, following the first elections to the parliament, became its first Deputy First Minister. In many ways co-led the Cabinet that so many of us who are now here served in.

He was partner during that time to two shadow Secretaries of State for Scotland and a Secretary of State for Scotland. He was deputy to three First Ministers, Minister for Justice and Minister for enterprise. He was acting First Minister on two occasions and he was dependable, trustworthy and very, very good in the chamber. He passed the first legislation. I often claim to have passed the first legislation as finance Minister in the Parliament back in 1999, and mine was the first planned legislation, but he was actually first, if we tell the truth, following the.

Walking free from Carstairs of a very dangerous man called Noel Ruddle in August 1999, a month into his job as Justice Minister, Jim Wallace had to prepare emergency legislation to close a loophole linked to the and deliver the Mental Health, Public Safety and Appeals Scotland Act 1999. He did so with a calmness and a clarity that we all saw and recognised in this chamber over recent years, but that was only the start because no other Minister carried as much change improving lives in Scotland in that first four year parliament.

In his role as justice Minister, he revelled in the opportunity to use the powers of the new parliament to modernise Scottish law in a way that had been impossible for the absence of time here at Westminster in the decades previously. From family law, the court reform to judicial reform, to land reform, to freedom of information, adults with incapacity, investigatory powers, police and fire service reform, sexual offences and marriage reform. He delivered more bills than any other Minister in that Cabinet by a long, long way, and he was not afraid to lead his deputy First Minister and willing to do things together.

Whether that was setting targets for renewables ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom, or banning smoking in public places, as we did towards the end of his time as deputy First Minister, he had a great sense of duty, but he was also great fun. And his colleagues tell a great story about him being at a charity event in his school, local school in Orkney, and someone challenged him to have his legs waxed for a fundraising contribution. He agreed and despite his screams, completed the the task and the school received a big donation.

Many years later, the school pupil, who conducted the ceremony and took the wax across his legs, became Health Secretary for Scotland, Mr. Neil Grace, and he certainly had a few close shaves in recent years.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh, oh. And Jim Wallace fever anecdote. One of his favourite anecdotes was when he came to see me to resign as deputy First Minister in 2005, and deputy First Minister in 2005, and he told me very solemnly he had planned the meeting in advance. We booked it in the diary 24 hours in advance, and I had worried advance, and I had worried overnight what he was going to tell me, and he he told me he was resigning as leader of the Scottish resigning as leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

And my response was thank God for that. He was very surprised by that response, until I told him that I had thought that he was seriously ill, and he was going to tell me something much worse than the fact that he was going to spend more time with his family. Here we are 20 years on, and we've lost someone who is honest, loyal and reliable. Principled to his core, never overly partisan, but helped deliver devolution for Scotland, but also ensured that devolution delivered for Scots.

I will miss his cheerful face, his wisdom and his humility, but I will not be alone in remembering always how he changed our nation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I first met Jim Wallace 43 years

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I first met Jim Wallace 43 years ago. I recognised him. He was standing at a bus stop outside the standing at a bus stop outside the Station Hotel in Aberdeen. He was a 28 year old newly elected member of 28 year old newly elected member of Parliament. I was a 23 year old Liberal councillor. He had no idea Liberal councillor. He had no idea who I was, but I introduced myself and offered him a lift to his public meeting and off we went.

On the way, he told me stories about the great Jo Grimond. Grimond had said that he would never trust a Secretary of State for transport until he saw them coming to debates by bus or on the tube. Little did I know, during that 20 minute conversation that Jim Wallace would go on to have such a profound effect on my life and, more
15:17
Lord Stephen Portrait Lord Stephen (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
importantly, such a huge impact on the life of our nations. Let us for the life of our nations. Let us for one moment, set aside everything that Jim did in the Scottish Parliament. We'll come back to that. Look only at his 18 years in the House of Commons chief whip, many frontbench roles MP for Orkney and Shetland, then his 19 years in this House from 2007 until last week. Minister and Law officer, Advocate General for Scotland, leader of the Liberal Democrats.

Here then his year as moderator of the General Assembly when he stood down as a Liberal Democrat but never stopped being a Liberal. All of that, those 37 years alone would amount to a remarkable political, parliamentary and church career. But of course, the Scottish Parliament was the pinnacle from the start of his leadership of the Scottish Liberal Democrats in 1992, Jim moved steadily towards his pivotal role in shaping, delivering and then helping to lead the new Parliament. He worked closely very closely with George Robertson, Lord Robertson, with Donald Dewar, and then after Donald's tragic death, with Jack McConnell, Lord McConnell, Jim had enormous respect for them all.

Lord McConnell's words of tribute have been even more poignant in the tragic circumstances of his own loss of his brother, which, by cruel coincidence, came on the very same day as Jim's death. And our thoughts are very much with you, Jack. I had been elected to the other place in 1991, in a by election, and I went to live during that time in a small room in Jim and Rosie's London flat. Our friendship grew beyond politics. There were family visits to the Wallace home in Tankerness in Orkney.

Jim was always great fun. Helen and Claire were young. My children were even younger. They always called him Uncle Jim and he would sing along to Agadoo do do push pineapple, shake the tree with the dance steps and the hand movements. I have the video. The low point though in our relationship came in May 2000 when Jim presented the Scottish Cup to his team Rangers after they narrowly defeated my team Aberdeen by four goals to nil.

He was beaming as he handed over the trophy. I immediately sent him a text message encouraging him to smile less but not using those words. Jim met many remarkable people. He once hosted Kofi Annan at a United Nations dinner in New York, and he explained, of course, that he had been brought up in Annan in Dumfriesshire. He later ended. Jim later ended the evening singing Burns songs, and was also delighted to discover that Kofi's wife was called Nan.

Obviously out of respect, he said he resisted the temptation to sing anything with the words nan and an. Jim embodied the very best of politics, the very best of people, courteous, collegiate, consensual, but with a strong and persuasive voice. He combined kindness with humility, authority with deep humanity. He held things together repeatedly at a time when the new Scottish Parliament was being tested to its limits, and he did more than that. He helped deliver many things free personal care for the elderly, the abolition of tuition fees, a strong new freedom of information regime, PR for local government in Scotland.

None of these things were easy, but above all, it was not about the policies. Jim was about friendships across all parties and places, about values and faith, and about family. Most of all about family. Rosie and Helen and Claire, his brother Neil, and of course, his grandchildren Katrina, Ella and Adam. It's very special, he said to me recently, being a grandfather, Jim Wallace, you two were very special, very loved and you will be very dearly missed.
15:22
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:34
None Portrait Oral questions: Facilitate consultation and collaboration with faith-based and voluntary sector organisations to deliver the Our Children, Our Future: Tackling Child Poverty strategy
-

The second Oral Question, the Lord Bishop of Lincoln. My Lords.
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:47
15:47
15:48
15:49
15:50
15:51
15:52
15:53
15:53
15:54
15:55
15:55
15:55
15:56
None Portrait Oral questions: Decision not to allow Shamima Begum and other British-born mothers and children to return to the UK from camps in Northern Syria
-

Fourth Oral Question Lord Dubs.
15:56
15:56
15:56
15:57
15:58
15:58
15:59
15:59
16:00
16:00
16:01
16:02
16:02
16:03
16:03
16:04
16:05
16:05
16:06
16:06
16:08
16:08
16:09
16:09
16:10
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I beg to move that this bill be now further considered on report. >> The question is that this bill be now further considered on report. As many as that opinion will say. Content contrary, not content. The Content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment 198 Baroness Barran. My Lords. This group contains some important amendments, including my amendments amendments, including my amendments 198 and 199198 deals with the duty to cooperate, which all schools are required to respect, and which I raised in the House at Committee stage.

I questioned at that point whether there was really a problem that needed solving, namely that academies were routinely refusing to accept children who had either been permanently excluded from another school or who were looked after child. The noble Baroness, the Minister, responded to me in November and I'm very grateful to her officials for preparing the data for me. But what it showed, my Lords, is that across the whole of England, there were tiny numbers of children where local authorities went to the Secretary of State with a request that she should direct admission of that child.

There were and there were only 24 cases last year, 28 the year before and 26 the year before that, where the Secretary of State used those powers. And that was about half of the requests that were made. So I think it's fair to say that with 8.8 million children in this country, over half educated in academies, to be arguing about 25 children a year seems extraordinary. The government made the case that this would also reduce delays, with the department taking 38 days to respond.

But surely a much simpler approach would be for the department to speed up its processes. And currently, with maintained schools, the the time taken to respond. In similar cases is between 28 and 35 days. If one takes the time into account which the maintained school has to file an objection, and the time for the school adjudicator to respond. So we are dancing on the head of two microscopic pins, one in relation to time and one in relation to the number of children, when all it would take would be for the Department to decide tomorrow to cut the time it takes to make these decisions.

More broadly, my amendment 198 aims to pick up on the points made at committee, particularly by my noble friend Lord Agnew, the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, and my noble friend Baroness Spielman. We all accept the principles that underpin the duty to cooperate and the need for all schools to do so. But as my noble friend Baroness Spielman pointed out in committee, there are cases where a school may not have the skills or capacity to address the needs of a particular child or children, and that is particularly true at a time when the SEN system for children with special educational needs and disabilities is under strain, and mainstream schools are expected to accept pupils whose needs are severe and who would previously have attended a special school.

Again at committee, the noble Baroness, the Minister, pointed out that local authorities must ensure that decisions are made in the child's best interests. My amendment would put in a balancing consideration of the child's needs, the needs of other pupils and the capacity of the school to meet those needs. So I wish at this very late stage, a faint wish that the government would withdraw this unnecessary clause. But if they won't do that, perhaps they might accept my amendment.

And if when the noble Baroness comes to sum up, if she doesn't accept my amendment, can she set out explicitly how these very reasonable concerns which balance the rights of different groups of children, will be addressed? My amendment 109 aims to prevent the school adjudicator from requiring high performing schools to reduce their Pam, or published admission numbers. There is a practical problem in some areas of falling pupil numbers. A projected drop of about 300,000 primary pupils by 2030 and 97,000 fewer secondary pupils, and this in turn is putting financial pressure on some schools.

But the way to sort this out, my Lords, is not by requiring the most popular, highest performing schools in an area to cut their pan, it pays no regard to the interests of children, nor to the rights of parents to choose a high performing school for their child. So my amendment says that if the school adjudicator cannot, that the school adjudicator may not issue a direction if the school is not operating at or above the published plan, they've been judged as providing high quality education in the past three years, and high quality is defined as where the Ofsted where Ofsted grade the quality of education as effective or better under the new framework.

More broadly, the adjudicator has to consider the desirability of giving effect to parental preferences and the need to avoid measures that unduly restrict access to high quality and oversubscribed schools. This is because you might have a school that was previously failing, but is now being run by one of the best trusts and is now oversubscribed, so it doesn't yet have a good quality of education judgement. But parents are starting to vote with their feet, and we don't want those schools to be forced to cut their numbers.

It also requires the schools adjudicator to consider other options to achieve the goal of reducing pressure on schools in an area, including through mergers and closures. And I don't underestimate how hard it is to close the school, but that is, in a way, exactly the point. It is administratively so much easier to require a popular school to cut its pan than to close a less popular school, but it is not the right way forward. In her letter to me, the noble Baroness cited an example of an academy that refused to expand that the department spent on expanding another local school, and then the first school later did decide to expand.

But, my Lords, that was I think I know which case it was, was because parents were voting with their feet. And the academy in question, which was originally to ask to expand by half a year. Group, which presents a whole other set of financial challenges. Noble Lords will remember the example my able friend Lord Agnew gave at committee of a primary school in the Inspiration Trust in Norwich. The Charles Darwin School, which, if I remember rightly, is one of a small handful of schools in Norwich.

Primary schools that reach above the national average for reading, writing and maths. When children finish, they've already been warned that they would have to halve their pupil numbers. I think it was three out of 24 schools that are better than the national average. Surely, my Lords, the answer is not to halve one of those three schools in terms of size. The noble Baroness Elliott Committee met at committee. She committed to working with the sector on the regulations. But that is not enough.

My Lords, it's clear that the department is prioritising financial concerns over pupil and parent choice and quality of education. Our amendment backs parental choice, it backs good schools and it makes sure that the interests of children are prioritised over protecting underperforming schools. I beg to move amendment proposed after clause 56. Insert the new clause in the terms as printed on the Marshalled List.
16:19
Baroness Burt of Solihull Portrait Baroness Burt of Solihull (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I would. >> I would. >> Like to speak to amendment 201 in my name, which deals with the in my name, which deals with the issue of faith based selection in school admissions. This speaks to the missing data that the schools Minister raised in the Committee stage. In the other place, the Department of Education currently does not collect data on how admissions policies are applied in schools and therefore does not know how many parents are missing out on places on their preferred schools placements because of their religion, or because they do not have a religion.

Collecting data would share light on what the impact of faith selective admissions is for parents and pupils, and whether such selection is contributing to or undermining parental choice. This isn't an argument against faith schools. Many provide an excellent education and are deeply rooted in their communities. Rather, the purpose of amendment 201 is to provide promote fairness and genuine parental choice by limiting the extent to which oversubscription criteria can be used to select pupils on the basis of religion.

In committee, the government pointed to the existing admissions framework that admissions must be published and applied consistently. But the question is not simply whether rules appear sorry, whether rules exist on paper. It is what those rules do. In practice, when a school is oversubscribed, if admissions turn on faith tests that some families cannot meet, either because they are of a different faith or of no faith, then in reality, the local school is not equally accessible to the local community.

There's also the wider issue of inclusion and cohesion. Selection by faith risks narrowing pupil diversity and, over time, separating children along religious and sometimes ethnic lines. During their formative years. Evidence suggests that faith based selection can correlate with lower inclusion. The Sutton Trust has found that faith schools are more socially selective, admitting fewer pupils eligible for free school meals than would be expected given their their local status. Research highlighted by the London School of Economics has reported that under admission of children with special educational needs and disabilities to Faith Primary Schools and the office of the Schools Adjudicator has reported concerns from local authorities that faith based criteria can, in some cases, disadvantage, looked after and previously looked after children.

My Lords, the aim here is straightforward to ensure that publicly funded schools serve their whole community and that parental choice is not narrowed by criteria unrelated to a child's needs or a family's proximity to the school. Amendment 201 is a measured step that supports fairness in admissions and helps ensure our children are brought together, rather than separated. So amendment 201 promotes fairness and parental choice in the schools admissions House.
16:23
Lord Hampton Portrait Lord Hampton (Crossbench)
-
-
Thank you. Good speech. to which I have added my name. And in this I am channelling my inner Baroness Wolf of Dulwich, who sincere apologies that she can't be in her place. My Lords, this amendment attempts to rectify another example of the bill in which a really intentioned idea is actually turning out to be a mistake. It's a bit of an example of top down government seemingly punishing a school for being successful, whereas education is all about nurturing and helping improvement in those who are less successful.

This is a cold logic to reduce empty places and surplus capacity. In an ideal world, the number of children wanting to go to various local schools would fit neatly into the number of places in local schools, but it doesn't. That is in part because parents are now much more aware of the league tables. Ofsted inspections, academy specialisations and all sorts of online opinions. It also reduces the most important incentive for a school to succeed and improve, one that's been at the heart of Labour's and successive governments Academies programme, which has itself been at the heart of 20 years of school improvement, one which threatens to be reversed by this if good and oversubscribed schools can expand and unpopular schools are not filled up with with unwilling attendees, then all schools have a strong incentive to be good.

When school choice and academisation were introduced, there were predictions that it would end up with lots of sink schools and with a significant number of children having an even worse education than was the case before the recruitment was freed up. My Lords, this didn't happen. There's been a steady decrease in the number of badly performing schools. Competition works, and not by creating a monopoly, by incentivising and driving improvement.
16:25
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Just a. stands in the back of this group. My Lords, off rolling. It is one of the. If whatever the good points of academisation, there has been a strong suspicion and in case, in fact, that certain schools are off rolling pupils, which are seen to be a problem. Now, the best of the academies are probably dealing with this. I don't remember the number Lord Agnew being very impassioned as a Minister saying we must stop this. There is a very strong suspicion, however, that it goes on possibly underneath the at a school level where a school teacher or a headmaster is worried about their own personal development.

Now, whether we like it or not, there is that strong suspicion and there is a rise in the number of exclusions, etc. that's going on. My Lords, I would hope that the Minister, when she answers this, will tell us how this is being dealt with. Because if it isn't, that is a problem we have to get to grips with. I would hope that there will be some coherent look at this so we know exactly what the case is. A strong suspicion with special educational needs being a factor that pushes towards it.

Pupil Referral Units I have known people going through this when they assume that every single pupil in a pupil referral unit has at least one special educational need. So I would hope that the government, when they come to answer this, the Minister, Baroness Smith, who has been engaged in on these types of areas so far, will give us an answer about what the government is going to do. Because, my Lords, even if there is a suspicion we should actually find out, the truth is and look at it coherently here.
16:27
Lord Nash Portrait Lord Nash (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. >> Talk to amendment. >> 198 in my name and also the amendment 199. Inclusion is very important, but some to many, frankly, children at the moment who should not be in maintained education are being admitted to maintain schools because of their parents wishes. And those parents are making decisions which are not in the best interests of their children and are often so they often inappropriate, inappropriate settings and too often affecting the education and the resources available to other children in those settings.

We need more special schools, better located so children are not spending hours in taxes, and we need better alternative provision. I very much hope that the government is seized with this issue and allow more special and AP free schools. Turning to amendment 1999, I find I find it hard to think of circumstances where it would be a good idea to limit the size of a school providing high quality education. But I can, however, think of many examples of where it would be a very bad idea.

As my noble friend Lady Brown has said, we are heading for an overcapacity situation in schools and the best way for that situation to resolve itself is by letting the market and parents decide. Local authorities are quite understandably reluctant to close schools, and there are often many local political or ward issues in play. And we certainly don't want local authorities reducing the pan of schools on the basis of political issues, overriding the interests of children or parents. I am also aware of boroughs which try to resist the creation of new free schools on the basis of a lack of demand in their particular location, when in fact, on further investigation, it became clear that many local pupils were actually going to schools in neighbouring or local authorities because their local schools were performing so poorly.

So it is a complicated issue. Also in my academy trust specialises in taking on failing schools. We've just taken on another secondary school thanks to actually terrific cooperation from the Department of Education and a certain amount of money, which I'm very grateful. Another failing school, a secondary school in Hertfordshire with only 400 pupils on the roll, but with a much higher pan and substantial local demand. This school had previously had three required improvements in 15 years. As we've taken on a further four failing schools in Hertfordshire and turned them round and have a very good relationship with Hertfordshire local authority, I don't think this would have been an issue, it would be an issue in this location.

But if we were in the future, asked to take on a similarly failing school in an authority we did not know. I think the ability of the local authority to reduce the Pan might well deter us, and no doubt others. Reducing the pan of a successful school to protect a school whose role is falling is no answer. Students do best in schools which are full or nearly full, and have the resources to provide an adequate education. And I would just like to say, in relation to and in support of the noble Lord Lord Addington amendment, whilst I do not think off rolling is as frequent as perhaps some people think, it would be better to know the answer and get the facts.
16:30
Baroness Morris of Yardley Portrait Baroness Morris of Yardley (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to make. amendments. >> First of all, in terms of the noble Lord Lord Addington amendment. Amendment 230. I have great sympathy with what he says, and I sympathy with what he says, and I hope that it may be an issue that the Minister will address when the Send reform plans are presented in due course on amendment 198. I understand. I understand the intention and I have a lot of sympathy with it. I can think of lots of schools that have been put in quite difficult positions, and lots of children who have not had a good deal for being allocated to a particular school.

I think the problem here is something that wasn't addressed by the noble Lady, Lady Barran is that on the whole, with the most challenging children, schools are not queuing up to take them. They might want to do their best by them. They might believe that that's their job. But with the accountability mechanisms, the way they are, it tilts the balance away from schools taking children who are for particular challenges. And if you put on legislation, there's a whole set of reasons why you can say no to a given child.

I don't think it makes the child or the family feel very good, but b I think you really have to work hard to make sure that it's for a valid reason, not an invalid reason. My approach would sooner be that you put support in and you make the system work. I'm an optimist. I don't think we have to give protection to some schools from taking challenging children. I think we've got it in us to adjust the adjust the policy framework. Go in there and help them succeed.

I think that really is serving every child and not discriminating against them. But my main comments wanted to be an amendment 199. And we did semi rehearse this at Committee stage, so I won't go over that again. Again, I've not got a problem I can't. I would never support a situation where a school that was unlikely to succeed had more children allocated to it, at the expense of a school that was doing well. If that was the only decision. I'd probably end up supporting the amendment.

But I think it's much more complicated that by that. And there's a bit of a conundrum at the heart of this, and it goes up to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton said. I agree with parental choice. I don't agree with the market in schools. And there's a difference between the two. Parental choice is right and good and desirable, and we should write the law to facilitate it whenever we can. But in a market you don't intervene, you let things fail. You let things wither away on the vine.

That takes time. Then they fail. Then they close. Then they leave a gap. Look at the high streets in some of our small towns, our towns and cities. We can't have that for schools. We cannot have a schools policy that has in it an acceptance that some schools will wither on the vine and fail. It's not good for the children who are there. And again, and I believe this, the noble Lady, Lady Byron, when she was a Minister and her colleague, the Lord Nash.

I know that they would have gone into those schools to intervene, go in and try to make them improve. And that's why I've never used the term market in terms of school parental choice. Yes, but market no. And I think that somehow is at the core of my concerns about about this amendment. I think there's two issues. If it was a if it was about the you're not you don't want to go to a surplus places. I think I would agree with the noble Lady if there's more children, let's try and put them in the schools that are flourishing.

But if you're in those situations where the number of students on roll in a given geographical area is falling, something has to happen. And if you can merge and if you can join them together, that's great. But you do get the difficult situation where you've got to do something else. And that's where I would manage parental choice and whatever market there is. And what I worry about this is that if you say, well, their numbers can't fall, but their numbers can fall, all you do is make it more difficult for every school to thrive and succeed.

And a school that's just turning that corner, which the noble Lady from the frontbench described. It's been taken over by a by a good academy. It's got itself a new head. It's maybe got new housing estate nearby. It's on its way. It would fall under this because it's not got good Ofsted inspection or anything like that. And I think I would ask the noble Lady from, from the opposition front bench when she replies if you look at Camden, 96 to 100% of schools in Camden are good or outstanding, I don't know, but I suspect Camden is going to fall in rolls at some point because it's a London borough.

And what this what this would do it give protection to every single school in Camden. Every single school would get protection through this clause because none of them are failing. Most of them are maintained schools, not academies. It doesn't matter. They're all doing a good job and this clause wouldn't work there. And I think the way that schools would read this is there's now a law that if I've got a good inspection in the last three years, I am protected. And if you try to enact the last bit, which is five A and B, I think you'd be in for an almighty row because you've given them the protection in this clause.

So I would sooner play to our optimism where schools really can't succeed, let them go and manage a good education for the pupils. But in cases of falling rolls, I just think we have to do everything we can to plan appropriately across a geographical area to make sure we give every school the best possible chance of doing well.
16:36
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
Yeah. Lord Moore it's a great >> Yeah. Lord Moore it's a great pleasure to follow the noble Lady Baroness Morris and to largely agree, although I would go somewhat agree, although I would go somewhat further and say that I think we have reached a situation of a market in schools in which very crude judgements are being applied by Ofsted and schools are being pushed to game the system, which is the reason why I signed amendment to 30 in the name of the noble Lord Lord Addington, and also why the green group will be opposing amendment 199 should that come to a vote.

Now, the noble Lord Lord Addington was, I think, charitable by saying there's a strong suspicion that there is off rolling going on. I'm afraid I have no doubt that there is off rolling going on, because up and down the country, up and down England, particularly in some of the most deprived communities, I've spoken to parents often, parents from very disadvantaged backgrounds themselves who said, well, I'm trying to homeschool my child now because because the head teacher said they thought that was the best thing that could happen, and that was not homeschooling by choice.

That was usually children. Pupils with special educational needs that the school just didn't want to deal with. And I do have some sympathy with headteachers. Having been a school governor myself, I know how much pressure headteachers are under to keep up with the results. The problem is we have created a competitive system where schools compete against each other, instead of working together to create the best result for every pupil. Now, this amendment to 30 is a very modest amendment.

It simply calls for a review. I can tell my anecdotal stories. I can't say how big the problem is. I've seen it in many places and I'm sure that it's quite widespread, but let's at least and I don't believe the noble Lord is intending to put this to a vote. But surely we can ask the government to look at this anyway. Surely this is something, as other noble Lords have said, we should know about, because this is one way in which we are failing some of our most disadvantaged pupils.

And, you know, 1999 the amendment, if it were to be passed, just furthers that sense of competition, which is the last thing we need in our schooling system.
16:38
Baroness Spielman Portrait Baroness Spielman (Conservative)
-
-
I also want to speak to amendment 198. >> And we'll touch on amendment. I think it was 230 Lord Addington amendment as well. I do find it surprising listening to noble Lords around the House have consistently believing that inspection, for which obviously I was responsible for seven years, does not place a heavy emphasis on inclusion, certainly throughout my time it did. The current framework has increased that focus almost to the point of giving up on looking at education, which now gets one learning walk.

And the results is about the extent of the coverage. So inclusion is and has long been taken extraordinarily seriously. The issue two issues I want to to touch on. The first is however much we might want to believe that every child's special needs can be coped with. There are times when those special needs consist of problems that actually inflict real harm on other children, and the most awful parental complaints that came across my desk were the children who had been seriously assaulted and harmed, some on occasion raped by another child who'd been admitted either by a school conscientiously trying to include a child who the local authority was desperate to find a place for, or who had been directed to take a child.

And that is agonising to learn about. And we have to acknowledge that the interests of other children do need to be considered when placing the most difficult children. That's an important, most of all for children. But of course it's important for staff as well. If people are trying to work outside their capacity, schools tend to deteriorate and that's not good for anybody. And linked to that, I also want to make a point about the off rolling that's been touched on again. In my time, we put more of an emphasis on looking for signs and pursuing to inquire into that where we found it.

One of the things that we discovered is that it is extraordinarily hard to characterise definitively whether an individual case is a case of off rolling or not. There is typically quite a long history, a deterioration of the relationship between the child and the school. It is not clean and tidy. Yes. No. So getting to a point where you could definitively say what the extent of it was would be extremely labour intensive. And the issue, in my view, my Lords, is not a lack of regulation to prevent this.

And inspection is perfectly capable of disincentivising, but we have to acknowledge that it needs a lot of resource that simply doesn't exist in Ofsted or anywhere else to dig into individual cases, to be able to establish the extent and the remedies.
16:41
Lord Sentamu Portrait Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
-
-
I stand to speak on. >> I stand to speak on. >> All three amendments 198 and 199

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All three amendments 198 and 199 and 230, if I may give some sort of historical background, the word historical background, the word education is derived out of two roots of the Latin word educare, which means to impart knowledge. And for too long some schools have seen themselves as imparting knowledge. They've already emphasised too much. That first root of the word educare. And then there is another root word in Latin which is educare. And this means to draw knowledge out of.

And often the best schools do both. They impart knowledge, but they also realise that person is not a blank sheet of paper on which you are going to simply impart knowledge, but not draw the best that's in them. And most schools, when they do that, actually students, pupils all thrive and they thrive very well. Now that being the case, I think we've gone through short term revolution where Her Majesty's inspectors saw themselves as actually helping the school to do better.

And then Ofsted arrived, which seemed to simply be giving judgements of the school and sometimes on a very narrow element. And if the school failed, its one of its elements. It was judged to be a failing school, totally as a failing school. And I speak and declare an interest in how there was Archbishop Thurstan School, which had been there for quite many, many centuries, and it wasn't performing the way it should be performing. And therefore there was a decision by the Secretary of State that it should be rebuilt, and the Council agreed to have it rebuilt and to be given a name which was canvassed throughout Hall.

And to my sort of surprise, the pupils, the staff, the council decided that it should be called Archbishop Academy. That was the beginning of Academisation and we were very fortunate that the Labour government, which lost the election in 2010, had agreed to provide them money. And I was told by John Prescott, be quick that you get this money because the new government may not want this to happen. Anyway. We got the 45 million. The place was rebuilt, the place was thriving.

And for the first time in the in the lives in Hull, students were thriving and doing excellent work, going to university for the first time. And four of them went to University of Liverpool, reading maths, which had never been dreamt of. The school was doing very well, but again, as it went on, there was a problem in one of the departments and there was Ofsted inspection. What did they say? The school has failed. There was then developed the school commissioner who had a job.

If the school had failed to be brokered and brought into a much larger group hoping it would work. And this happened. And the thing which shocked me was Ofsted will not visit that school for three years now. I said, as a parent, if I've got a child in that school and you judge it to be failing, I would like to know in the next year whether it is improved. And I must say to your Lordships' House, I actually appealed to the Minister of State that this was not the right way to go.

And thankfully, the Minister of State from this your Lordships' House invited the Commissioner, myself and a local authority representative, and he took a decision that there must be within six months Ofsted inspection and a retired HMI experienced inspector to visit the school and see what it was was doing. The inspection happened and actually they declared it not a failing school. So the brokerage stopped. Dear friends, what is going on here? I think amendment 18198 and 199 are trying to say, don't use a sledgehammer to crack a smile.

What matters is that all our schools must not only impart knowledge, but draw knowledge out of them. And certainly amendment 230 is saying there is a middle way. Don't don't just go in one direction. And I would like to support what I've heard from Baroness Morris because she says some schools are short period, may not be doing well and are trying to come out. And then what do you do? We're going to shut you up or those that are thriving. It doesn't matter what is failing somewhere else.

Take in more and more pupils without more and more resources. And the greatest regret for me, who's been involved in a lot of education in schools, is the way there was a very bad philosophy taking education out of the support and encouragement of local authorities, the suggestion that they were not delivering well. So what do you do? You create more and more academies in the hope that you do well. Education somehow needs to return to the local place. So I think amendment 198199 and 230 are actually trying to look, how do we reorganise all this in all our education system that not only does it impart knowledge, but draws out knowledge from every child.

And when that happens, the schools will thrive.
16:47
Baroness Bousted Portrait Baroness Bousted (Labour)
-
-
Very briefly. >> Very briefly. >> Against the amendment 199 and I'm following the very wise words I'm following the very wise words of Baroness Morris. In doing so, I just do not understand how this amendment would allow the management of school places and the good use of taxpayers money. Your places in the capital. In London, year seven places are expected to fall by 7.6% in the next five years, reception by 6.4% in the next four years.

And that will mean that those schools altogether will see about a £45 million cut in their budget. This cannot just be left to chance. There needs to be a way of managing the school population, ensuring that money is well spent, taxpayers money is well spent, and that these children are placed in schools which are viable, which have enough pupils that they can be offered a full curriculum. And we do not want the situation that we have in Northern Ireland, where the grammar schools fill up the secondary, modern schools are left with completely variable roles year on year, where they're not able to offer a full curriculum.

They're not able to give the children who most need it in Northern Ireland the education that they deserve. So amendment 199 takes market forces to a ridiculous level, and would mean that the government and the local area cannot manage school places to ensure a broad and balanced curriculum for each child. And that would be particularly the case with the new curriculum, which will be broader and more balanced and is long overdue. So I would say it's really important to reject 198, because there needs to be a mechanism for the most vulnerable children, and it's not true that inclusion.

And I'm afraid I just really have to disagree with former chief inspector. Everybody knows there are certain schools which take which do not take the children with special educational children that they need to take. And there are other schools which are then dumped on. And I have to take far too many children with very profound special needs, to the detriment of those children and other pupils in the class. Everybody knows in reality that happens. Lord Nash is nodding. It's true. So it's not true that inclusion is just.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Say, at what point I said that that schools did not, that there were schools that did not take

**** Possible New Speaker ****

were schools that did not take children? I don't think I did. Apologise if that's the case. So let me apologise for that, saying let me apologise for that, saying that they have got better at inclusion and I that you're quite inclusion and I that you're quite right to upbraid me on that. And but I will say that it is really important that there is a power to important that there is a power to direct schools, to take pupils in order that those pupils get an education.

That's the first thing. And secondly, we do need a way of organising an admissions system which allows all children within that locality to have a viable education, a full, broad and balanced curriculum.
16:50
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, some of the points >> My Lords, some of the points that Baroness Bousted makes are that Baroness Bousted makes are important to consider, but let me remind you that governments of various political persuasions over the years have said how important it is that there is parental choice, and they've encouraged parents to look at the results of a school, to read the school prospectus, to go and visit the school. And sometimes those parents even look at how the children behave at a bus stop waiting to go home of an evening.

Sometimes it's by word of mouth and I have to tell you, I guarantee that every single person, or nearly every single person sitting in this chamber, wanted the best possible school for their child, and they and I can look at members of different political parties who had strong views and espoused strong views on this issue. But when it came to their own children, they often chose schools which weren't in the local catchment, or weren't the school that they were subscribed to go to, or in some cases it was an independent or private school.

So we have encouraged the body politic, has encouraged the notion of parental choice. And of course, we know that as numbers, pupil numbers rise, that becomes puts all sorts of pressures on schools and becomes very hard to deliver in all sorts of ways. And I'm sorry to go on about Liverpool, but it's obviously my home city and I learn lessons from it. I remember in the 70s, late 60s and 70s when the then council decided to build two brand new state of the art comprehensives.

One was in the inner city called Paddington Comprehensive, the other was in the north called Netherley Comprehensive. They were built as 12 form entry schools, fantastic facilities, drama, you name it. The parents chose preferred the small secondary schools of three and four form entry, and various Secretaries of State at the time wrestled with this problem as the numbers dropped and dropped and dropped, and I remember going to Shirley Williams, who was then the Education Secretary of State for education, and saying, look, Paddington Comprehensive is now only a two form entry school.

Why don't we make it into a tertiary college? And the Secretary of State at the time, Shirley Williams, said no. And I used to tease her about that, that decision. But so it's not an easy thing to do. And we know now that primary numbers are declining. I think the figure was given by Baroness Barran. And already in Liverpool we can see even popular primary schools or so-called popular primary schools with spare capacity. So how do we do that? How do we sort that problem out? And I just think the answer personally, is not to try and be, you know, the professor of admission numbers and numbers off here and add numbers off here.

I think, sadly, we have to do what we promised parents. We have to let parents decide. And the answer isn't to say we're going to make that school survive, as in the case of Paddington, by reducing the form entry here, or in some cases closing the school. So they have to go there. That is not the answer at all. I think we have to. I hate to say this, I thought never thought in my political career would I say this. I think we have to let educational market forces take their course.

I think we have to allow, if we believe, as we promised, parents, parental choice, we have to allow that and to try and say, for example, the form entry, the pan of so-called popular schools is not the solution. There are actually there are academies which are not popular. The term let's think all academy schools are going to gain from this. I know several academies. I'm not going to name them where numbers have dropped dramatically. And that's because again of parental choice.

And that is probably the right thing. So when it comes to this amendment, I'm going to have to hold my nose. But I think it's probably the right thing to do. I want to on amendment 198, I, as always, Baroness Morris, really said what I think we on these benches think and Lord Addington I have never understood off rolling in the sense that I can see children being taken off roll because the parents want to move or want to take them out of the school.

I can see off rolling when a pupil is permanently excluded from school, I can see off rolling where a child has special educational needs which can't be met at the school. But I can't understand how schools were allowed to off roll pupils for no particular reason at all. And there are examples of where parents were given advice from schools which weren't the right way to progress. So I just think that of rolling shouldn't happen. It should not happen at all, I just don't.

In fact, I said to my noble friend Lord Addington, why do we why do we need to review the practice? Isn't the practice just not allowed? And we move on? So I look forward to the minister's reply.
16:56
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I just want to respond briefly to a couple of the remarks briefly to a couple of the remarks that were made in relation to the amendments in my name in relation to amendment 198. I'd like to thank my noble friend Lord Nash also for adding his name to the amendment, but also for making the case that we need more special schools and more alternative provision. And I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, will have something to say on that.

In relation to the noble Baroness Morris of Yardley, she said, I wrote down we're giving schools reasons not to take a child, but the reason is the other children in the classroom. And I wasn't trying to suggest that easy. I'm just saying there's one child who needs the right place, and we should do everything we can to make that happen. But there are 29 other children who also need to learn and to be able to study safely. Turning to amendment 199, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, put it well that it feels like we're punishing successful schools, and that is the worry.

So again, going back to the noble Baroness Baroness Morris of Yardley comments, actually, the new school that's improving was exactly the example that that would be allowed to continue to grow in the way that. So I think perhaps she misunderstood my remarks about that in relation to a situation like Camden. Well, as she knows, first of all, my amendment wouldn't apply. You would have to make an appropriate plan for exactly the way that the noble Lady described. But we're talking about areas where you've got schools performing at very different levels, and it's the best schools that are forced to reduce their numbers.

The noble Lady Baroness describes that as market forces gone to ridiculous levels. I just think it is about respecting parent choice. As the respecting parent choice. As the noble Lord Lord Storey said.
16:59
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
So with respect to the. >> Amendments in Group. >> One, let me just be. government. >> Is committed. >> To ensuring that all.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Children, especially the most vulnerable, can access a school place where they can achieve and where they can thrive. And the where they can thrive. And the whole range of our bill measures reflect this objective. Turning, first of all to amendment 198, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which introduces specific requirements for local authorities when using their powers to direct a school to admit a child. I agree with the noble Lady that local authority decisions to direct the admission of a child should be reasonable, account for the needs of the child, and ensure that schools can meet those needs.

And I accept, as noble Lords have argued, that there is more that needs to be done to ensure that all schools are able to provide for the needs of children with special educational needs, or even that sometimes it's more appropriate that those children are educated elsewhere. And we will address that that challenge, which is wider, I think, even than we're discussing today in our forthcoming white paper. But as I stressed during committee, no, sorry, let me make one other point before I move on to that.

The noble Lady, Baroness Baron, questioned the need for this measure on the basis of the numbers that it might apply to. I have to say that that even if numbers are small, it is vital that we're able to ensure that some of our most vulnerable children can be found a school place as quickly as possible. Our data is clear. This happens more quickly when local authorities can make directions themselves. But on the point about the requirements of that, local authorities need to fulfil.

I stressed during committee that these requirements already exist, both in the legislation and in public law principles. Our proposals will give trusts the right to object against a proposed direction, and this will actually apply to a wider range of circumstances than the noble Ladies Amendment proposes. And the schools Adjudicator will consider issues in the round, including those in the amendment. We consider that school adjudicators are best placed to handle such objections, as they routinely consider them from maintained schools and advise the Secretary of State on academy directions their proven expertise and judgement in this area means independent and sensible decisions can be reached as quickly as possible.

The current clause strikes the right balance between protecting the rights of all schools and ensuring that vulnerable children can be found. A school place without delay. Turning to amendment 199, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which seeks to limit the circumstances in which the adjudicator can set a lower published admission number or Pan. Following an upheld objection. I thought, as always, we heard wise words from my noble friend Baroness Morris, and experienced and wise words from my from my noble friend Baroness Bousted.

It is the case that there are particular challenges in ensuring that we can maintain high quality schools and parents choice of those high quality schools, particularly given the declining numbers of pupils at primary schools in recent years, which is set to feed into the secondary phase, it is vital that schools and local authorities work together on school place planning, particularly given those circumstances, and clause 57 will help to ensure that the system is able to meet this challenge.

I had understood that the noble Lord Lord Storey shared our view on this challenge and the way that we were going about doing it, but clearly other things have intervened in the in the meantime. Can I just provide a little bit of reassurance as well to the noble Lord, Lord Nash? Admission authorities will remain responsible for setting their pan, and I can quite understand the concern that the noble Lord expressed about the situation where the Academy trust takes over another school in a local authority, where he might not feel that there was such a good relationship.

So. So just to sort of reassure, it would remain, of course, the responsibility of the admission authority in this case, the the Academy Trust, to determine the Pan, it would be possible for the local authority to object, but so would it be in any in any circumstances. This doesn't change that. Clause 57 provides that where the adjudicator upholds an objection to that number, they can specify a more appropriate number to be included in the school's admission arrangements. Alongside changes to regulations.

This change will help create a clear legal framework for decisions on Pan. I share the noble Baroness Baron's view that children achieve and thrive when they are at high quality schools. That's what we're all trying to achieve here, and I agree completely that decisions on Pan should maintain a very strong focus on the quality of available places, maintaining high standards and high levels of parental choice. And I can commit to the noble Lady to update the statutory school admissions code so that school quality and parental preference are central to any decision on Pan, as the code is legally binding, the adjudicator will be required to consider quality and parental preference as a central part of their decision making.

For any Pan determination. Proposals for a clear framework for setting and making decisions about Pans will be subject to a full public consultation as part of an updated school admissions code. Furthermore, all changes to the code and associated regulations must be laid before Parliament, so this House will have a say over their adoption in due course. I hope that this commitment to put in place clear requirements of the adjudicator provides the noble Lady with assurance that school quality will always remain a central consideration, whilst allowing for flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances, for example, to reflect any future changes to accountability measures.

In other words, how we actually identify and define strong school performance, which is obviously an important element of her amendment and would be restricted by that amendment. Turning to amendment 201, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, this requires the Secretary of State to publish information about schools admission arrangements, including any faith based arrangements, and for schools to provide the necessary information to the department. During committee, the noble Lady indicated that this amendment would show how many parents are missing out on their preferred school place due to religion, but the department already publishes data on how many applicants were made an offer at their preferred school.

Nearly 99% of primary pupils and 96% of secondary pupils have attended attended one of their preferred schools. Additionally, as I stated during committee admission, authorities must already publish their admission arrangements on school websites, including the proportion of places which will be prioritised for pupils of the faith, and they must also supply information to enable local authorities to compile and publish an annual admissions prospectus. The departments get information about school service, also provides details concerning a school's religious character, ethos and any diocesan affiliation where applicable.

Finally, turning to amendment 230, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Addington, which seeks to review off rolling practice in schools. I agree with the noble Lord off rolling is unacceptable and we will continue to work, including with Ofsted to tackle this. Ofsted treats off rolling seriously and where evidence is found, this could impact a school's leadership and governance evaluation. And on the understandable point that we need to understand the scale of the problem in order to be able to address it.

Since September 2025, local authorities have access to a weekly report identifying any pupil of compulsory school age whose name has been removed from a school roll in England and has not subsequently been added to another. This report has been downloaded over 2000 times this academic year by 147 local authorities to support their usual checks to identify and locate children, for example, who may be missing education. But we will go further and we're also considering how we can strengthen the accountability system for pupil movement to ensure that every child can achieve and thrive, and we will have more to say about that in the near future.

Given those assurances and a explanation of the particular challenges that we're facing and the need for local authorities to be able to manage school places for the benefit of all children, a high quality schools and parental choice, I hope that noble the noble Lady would feel able to withdraw her amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well done, well done.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg leave to withdraw amendment 198 in my name. Lordships pleasure the amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lordships pleasure the amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is with by leave withdrawn. Amendment 199

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Baroness Barran. I appreciate the noble Ladies
17:09
17:10
17:23
17:25
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Portrait Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Conservative)
-
-
played an important role in raising educational standards over the last 15 years, with their benefits felt most strongly in communities that have needed them the most. As I set out during our discussions at committee, last summer's exam results underline their impact. Free schools outperformed other non-selective state schools at both GCSE and A-level, pushing up standards, particularly in areas of significant deprivation and low educational achievement, giving school leaders the autonomy to innovate, whether through a longer school day and more stretching curriculum, or developing closer links with business and universities, clearly have a measurable impact on school outcomes.

And this success continues. Only last week, 62 students over a quarter of the year group at the London Academy of Excellence, one of the earliest free schools to open, learned they had secured Oxbridge offers, surpassing the success of many of the country's leading independent schools. This outstanding achievement makes it even more regrettable that in December, the government chose not to go ahead with a new sixth sixth form free school in Middlesbrough, backed by Star Academy in Eton, which aimed to deliver similar outcomes for its students.

It was one of 26 proposed mainstream free schools that were cancelled after a long delay, to the dismay of the teachers, parents and communities who had championed their plans. But it is not just one free school or trust making a huge difference. Research from the Nfrw shows pupils attending secondary free schools get better. Grades at GCSE, have lower absence rates and more likely to take A-levels and to go to university. So will the government publish the quantitative thresholds that were used to judge community lead, need, demographic demand and the impact on existing schools that lay behind the recent cancellation of each of the 28 mainstream free school projects? And will they publish the assessment scores for each council project? I think this would be extremely helpful information and would be a transparent way so that the groups who put a lot of effort into these projects understood the reasons, and the parents who may not obviously have been privy to conversations with the DfE, were able to understand the decisions.

To my Lords, free schools have provided a route for new ideas, energy and educational models to join the state system. Indeed, the government itself has acknowledged that the Free Schools programme has been crucial to meet demographic need and PA new pioneer new models that can raise standards. Yet clause 58 will mean fewer chances to innovate and less opportunity for the best performing academies to expand and replicate their models. So it is disappointing that the government, despite some of its words, seems unwilling in practice to recognise the contributions free schools have made and indeed could continue to make, to improving our education system and achievement in which we should all take pride.
17:28
17:28
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to make the >> My Lords, I rise to make the case that clause 58 should not stand part of the bill as set out stand part of the bill as set out in my amendment 203. I'm bringing this back because at committee the noble Baroness, the Minister gave, I think, the most cursory response that I received over the course of the bill, she said, and I quote, the current system allows local authorities to propose new schools only as a last resort or in very limited circumstances.

Local authorities hold the statutory responsibility to secure sufficient school places in their area, and it's right that we give them greater ability to fulfil that duty effectively. These changes will enable consideration of any local offer that meets the needs of children and families. End quote I then wrote to the Minister to ask how often local authorities had been unable to meet these duties effectively. The reply stated and I quote again, the department does not collect data on how many times local authorities run a process to open a new school, but as you know, some regions have many more academy trusts operating in them than others.

And under the high quality trust framework, some trusts are considered much stronger than others in terms of governance, finances and educational expertise. End quote. So actually, once again, the government has no firm evidence that there's a problem that needs solving. The letter refer to areas with a projected shortfall in 2028, but also highlighted the number of schools in the free school pipeline again. So there are three elements in delivering a new free school. The need needs to be identified.

The local authority puts together a plan, consults with the community, defines the scope of the school. All those responsibilities sit with the local authority, then running the school and making sure it delivers. The highest possible educational quality rests with the academy. Trust and regulation sits with the Secretary of State, but now, under the new proposal, the local authority will be able to both define the scope of a new project and be able to bid for its own contract.

And this has three negative consequences. Firstly, it creates an inherent conflict of interest test such that a new approval process will be needed by the Secretary of State. In these cases, and this conflict risks resulting in new schools being opened and run by local authorities who do not have the expertise in this area. Unlike some of the most experienced trusts, it also will leave us with schools that have far less transparency and accountability than an academy. As my noble friend Lord Agnew spelt out at committee, local authority schools do not have to prepare accounts, and many trusts have found considerable inefficiencies that can be addressed when they join a trust, so more can be invested in the education of children.

And finally, it will push up costs. Although the department doesn't know by how much, and in their letter, they clearly hope it will be absorbed by existing budgets and we will see how well that works. As my noble friend Baroness Evans of Bowes Park set out, free schools have been the engines of innovation in our school system, and their impact can be seen not just in their outcomes, but crucially, in the scale they achieve as other schools and trusts seek to implement their approaches.

Schools such as Michaela and Mercia have transformed what any of those working in education thought was possible. With progress eight scores above two between committee and report, the government has announced the fate of the Free Schools pipeline, approving 31 projects, cancelling 46 and putting 59 in jeopardy. In all of those cases, the trusts had worked with the local authority to propose the school and in all cases, but especially the special and AP schools, the local authorities wholeheartedly welcomed the provision.

However, these are the schools the government wants to stop, even where the local authority is fully supportive. So it does leave one wondering whether the government, for all its warm words, just has a problem with free schools. The government's approach risks putting this kind of innovation and progress at risk in order to address the sufficiency sufficiency issue, which they themselves cannot quantify.
17:33
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern (Labour)
-
-
So in group two, as I say, this relates, as we've heard, to opening new schools and turning to amendment 203, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which would remove a clause 58 from the bill. Clause 58 ends the legal presumption that new schools should be academies always, and allows a wider range of proposals for new schools to be put forward. During committee, the noble Lady argued that the presumption process has worked well and raised concerns about the capacity of local authorities to deliver new schools.

We did provide her with further information on these points at her request, but I will emphasise again here that we recognise the contribution that academies make to high and rising standards and on the particular points that the noble Lady Baroness Evans raises with respect to the free school pipeline. Just to be clear, we are proceeding with those mainstream projects that meet the needs of communities, respond to demographic and housing demand, and that will raise standards without undermining the viability of existing local schools and colleges.

We will back new schools that offer something unique for students who would otherwise not have access to it. But we do once again need to understand the context in which we're operating. Primary pupil numbers have been falling since 20 1819. That decline is set to feed into secondary. Creating new free schools now risks adding surplus capacity while demographic need declines. Free schools have been a very positive addition to our school system, but since 2010, over £300 million has been spent on over 50 free schools that subsequently closed money that could have been invested in places for children with special educational needs or addressing urgent condition need in existing schools.

It is important that we plan these school places and these new openings carefully. We continue to back academy schools and we are encouraging high quality trusts to grow, for example, by confirming the outstanding start Academies Trust will be able to progress the Eton Star, Dudley and Oldham projects, which will support young people in disadvantaged areas, to progress to top universities. As we've heard in Teesside, the decision not to proceed reflects careful consideration of the likely impact on existing good quality provision.

Our assessment of the local context in each area indicated that there was a higher potential risk to the sustainability of the existing academic provision in Teesside than in Dudley and Oldham, which couldn't be mitigated by conditions. And that's why this decision was taken not to proceed in Teesside, but it was taken to proceed in Dudley and in Oldham, and we also undertook to explore with Eaton Star whether learners can be supported in a different way through their work.

I don't apologise for the government taking responsible decisions about how we spend public money on, yes, high quality but also sustainable provision for the future and in relation to special needs schools for high needs places, we are offering the most local authorities the option of per place funding to deliver the same number of specialist places differently, or to continue with their special or AP free school. So the the measure in clause 58 will still provide a route for strong trusts to open new schools.

We know that high quality trusts exist in many areas of the country, but not everywhere. In many areas, we expect proposals of new schools to be predominantly or even exclusively high quality academy trusts. But in other areas, the right trust may not be immediately available to provide the school that is needed. That's why clause 58 provides flexibility and will support local authorities in fulfilling their sufficiency duty by allowing a wider range of proposals from different bodies and for different types of schools to be considered from the start of the process.

This will better enable good local schools to open when needed. Given that, I hope that the noble Lady will will feel able to withdraw her amendment and support clause 58.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 202 be agreed to as many as are that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it, albeit distinctly sotto have it, albeit distinctly sotto voce. Amendment 203 Baroness Barran voce. Amendment 203 Baroness Barran not moved. Amendment 205. The Lord Norton of Louth. My Lords. I'm Norton of Louth. My Lords. I'm sorry. Pardon. I've gone too fast. Amendment 204 already debated. Move formally. The member proposed leave out clause 62.

As many as are of that opinion will say content To the contrary, not content. Yes. Slightly louder. Thank you. Amendment 205 the Lord Norton of
17:39
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page