Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Benjamin Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 215 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and Amendment 216 in the name of my noble friend Lord Addington, who has great experience in matters concerning children with special needs, so I fully support his amendment. I shall speak on Amendment 215 on behalf of my daughter, who is a secondary school teacher and has considerable experience regarding the issue of children using smartphones in schools. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that she is fully in favour of this amendment, like so many other teachers up and down the country. Her school has a phone ban and she tells me that it works really well, as it allows teachers to concentrate on lessons and not spend valuable time policing the use of smartphones during the school day.

It works also because it is a great discipline for children to resist the temptation to access their phones during school and lesson time. On the other hand, I have spoken to teachers at education conferences whose schools do not have a ban on smartphones, and they long for that change. They have told me that they spend a great deal of time preventing pupils using phones instead of concentrating on teaching. They express their frustration at how some children cause disruption and are offensive to teachers who tell them to put their phones away. Often, pupils are distracted or bullied and harassed on social media and messaging apps. Girls especially are very intimidated by boys sharing upskirt videos of them and making offensive sexual suggestions. These are some of the reasons why Amendment 215 is asking for a ban on the use of phones by children during school hours.

On arrival at school, pupils will simply be asked to leave their phones in a secure place until the end of the school day. In the event of an emergency at home, the school can be contacted and act on the situation appropriately. Pupils can be taken out of class and given back their phone to contact their home if necessary. Actually, I believe that if a child were to receive an upsetting emergency message on their phone in the class or playground, it could be very traumatic for them to deal with. My daughter told me of a case of one of her pupils whose father passed away unexpectedly. The school was contacted and the child was taken out of class and received pastoral care to help them deal with the distressing news and take in the devastating loss.

We know that the use of smartphones can be addictive and cause mental stress, depression, fear, anxiety and harm, which can be very difficult to deal with, especially in the school environment. Incidentally, this issue very much runs parallel with the current move to ban children under the age of 16 from accessing social media accounts, which I very much support. It was great to see that Spain announced today that it will bring in an under-16 ban, too. Hurrah!

I urge the Government to accept these amendments, give clarity and make a general policy across all schools, state and private, that phones are banned, except in the circumstance of children with special needs, as highlighted in my noble friend Lord Addington’s Amendment 216. Let us give our children some respite from social media, YouTube and messaging apps during school hours; let us get away from the distractions and harms they currently cause to our children and help those children concentrate on their special education. Because, as my mum always says, “Education is your passport to life”.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 216. The amendment to ban mobile phones in schools was introduced to safeguard children’s well-being, which is a principle that I wholeheartedly support. But it is therefore imperative that we consider all the ways that a mobile phone can be vital for a child’s well-being and security.

I was recently contacted by a mother of a diabetic child who relies on a mobile phone app to monitor her glucose level and manage insulin treatment. Without that device, her child would be at serious risk. For students who depend on assistive technology, whether for communication, medical monitoring or learning support, a mobile phone is not a distraction: it is a lifeline. We must ensure that, in our efforts to protect children from the harms of excessive screen time, we do not inadvertently endanger those who rely on these technologies to participate fully and safely in school life. This amendment provides the necessary clarity and protection for vulnerable students and I urge the House to support it.

Incidentally, I was contacted today by young carers who need access to a phone because of their caring roles. One young carer said, “I’m not going to go into school, then, because I’ll be too worried that something might happen to the person I am looking after”. So there are nuances to this issue and one of the ways of dealing with them is by supporting the amendment that was moved by my noble friend Lord Addington.

On the general issue, whether it is teachers, parents or grandparents, everybody has concerns about mobile phones in school. It is interesting to remember what the head of Ofsted said. He said that they had played a part in the ongoing scandal of poor school attendance,

“whether by chipping away at attention spans and eroding the necessary patience for learning, or by promoting disrespectful attitudes and behaviours”.

He also linked mobile phones in schools to the massive increase in permanent exclusions—which, in 2023-24, were up to a record 10,885 children and young people permanently excluded from school—and to the increase in the number of suspensions. I do not know whether they are a direct result of having mobile phones in schools, but clearly Ofsted’s chief inspector thinks that that is the case.

I think a ban will have to be agreed, but I hope that, when this comes back on ping-pong, the Government might clarify some of the ways that we deal with these exceptions, because there are issues as well. If, for example, a child or young person needs their mobile phone to monitor their glucose levels, how will that phone be handed in or given back? Will there be a register for that? It all needs to be thought through but, yes, we need to ban mobile phones in school.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Benjamin Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Benjamin]

127: Clause 32, page 57, line 11, leave out “C” and insert “D”

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 127, 129 and 130 in my name, which are supported by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson; I thank him for his support, as always.

These amendments are on behalf of young performers in the fast-paced and flourishing entertainment industry. I congratulate all of the young people involved in films nominated for the BAFTA awards. I have worked closely with Spotlight, experts on international child performance licensing, and child licence co-ordinators, all of whom have a wealth of experience in dealing with child performers and the issues that surround them and their well-being; I thank them all for their hard work and commitment.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope I have addressed the concerns raised by noble Lords in this group, and that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I am overjoyed. I am so happy for the child performers of today and the future, because we are breaking down barriers that might prevent them having an exciting experience in the creative industry. I thank the Minister for partially accepting my amendments; I am most grateful for that.

Once again, I thank her and her team for the hard work which has gone on behind the scenes for us to get to this point. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for his support—and for giving us an insight into his career; it was interesting to hear that from him. I also want to take the opportunity to thank the Minister for her clear commitment to reviewing the regulations that govern child performing, both in this country and abroad.

The creative industries are a source of great pride to our country, but at their very heart must be the well-being of the children who contribute so much to their success. I am therefore grateful to the Minister for recognising this and that the existing framework must keep pace with the realities of the modern world we live in. It is so important that we do that for our children.

I particularly welcome the Minister’s assurance that the review will be undertaken in close collaboration with industry colleagues and those with front-line experience. It is important that we listen to what they say; they are at the forefront of what is going on in the lives of children who are performers. Working together this way is essential if we are to strike the right balance, enabling opportunity and creativity while ensuring robust safeguards that protect children’s welfare, education and long-term prospects.

I look forward to continuing working with the Minister and her officials. The job is not done—there is a lot further to go. For that commitment and the constructive spirit in which this work will be undertaken and move forward, I sincerely offer my gratitude and beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.

Amendment 127 withdrawn.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Benjamin Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is occasionally accused of being somewhat angry and irate when we get on to these subjects. That is entirely understandable. She founded 5Rights in 2013. We are now 13 years later, and she is repeating some of the same arguments, warnings and evidence again and again. I remind your Lordships that for many of those years the noble Baroness was the person to whom all the bereaved parents would go, to have somebody who understood what they were going through and who would work to coalesce and bring them together so they had a community, because they had nowhere else to go. She has lived directly with the shame, the fear, the anger and the sorrow of those bereaved parents and has helped them deal with that. In so doing, she has worked with them, and everybody thought and hoped that delivering the Online Safety Act would provide, at least in part, an answer. That those parents are as disappointed as they are with where we are is a cry of shame which Parliament has to listen to. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron: I do not mind which way you vote—that is what I tell kids: “Whatever you do, vote”—but whichever way you vote, let us send a message back and get this dealt with.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lady Kidron and the right reverend Prelate. We have a choice to make today, and I hope that we will make the right choice.

I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, which is really important. Early years matter—they matter so much that we must do everything we can to protect them.

I also support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, to which I have added my name. I wish to speak on Amendment 94A, which is really important, as I strongly believe that children under the age of 16 should not be able to access social media and have social media accounts. This is a necessary measure until the online platforms accept their responsibility, implement stringent safety controls and perform their duties to our children. We have given them the opportunities to do so; now is the time for us to act decisively. Each minute we wait, more damage is done to our children’s well-being.

It is great that the Government have moved on this issue, but they have done so in the wrong direction. There is no need for a consultation, which will cause even further delay. We have all the evidence we need; we have to stop this catastrophe now. The world is watching us, and I believe that many countries will follow suit, because this is a global crisis.

There are those who believe that this amendment is a blunt instrument and will prevent children accessing the outside world. I do not agree. Let us consider the options. What would we rather have: children becoming addicted, showing signs of anxiety, even taking their own lives and being exposed to the terrible age-inappropriate dangers allowed by social media providers, who do not have our children’s interests at heart, or protecting them until those social media providers get their act together? I know which option I would choose. This amendment sends a clear message to those who want to harm our children and fail to protect them. They have failed in their duty, and now is the time for us to act.

It is important to make clear that children do not need a social media account to access the internet. I am not proposing to ban children from the internet, which is a great source of information for their educational studies on platforms such as Wikipedia or BBC Bitesize. The amendment is preventive. It would prevent them having social media accounts where they can be contacted and reveal personal and private details that expose them to potential abuse, harm or coercive behaviour. The word “ban” is emotive, but the amendment is a preventive measure in the same way that children cannot buy alcohol or a lottery ticket. You would not allow your children to freely play on the motorway, so why do we allow them to easily open social media accounts that can cause harm and trauma and, in some cases, endanger their lives?

For the last 20 years or more, I have been speaking out and begging children to resist temptation and to be aware of what the online world was seducing them into. I have begged them to switch off and say no to these temptations, which lead them down a path of potential harm. Unfortunately, my message and warnings did not spread far enough and we are now facing a crisis, an epidemic of children suffering from mental health issues, depression, isolation, bullying, blackmail and intimidation—the frightening list goes on and on— because of their exposure to the dark side of social media.

What have we done to our children? Many of them have had their innocent childhoods snatched away from them, sliding down into a cesspit of uncontrolled harm, danger and disturbing behaviour. The scary reality of the depression and mental health issues that children are experiencing is frightening. According to the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, there was a 22.7% increase in suicide rates of those aged between 10 and 24 between 2012 and 2022. It has been well documented that adolescents are showing rising addiction to social media and face a doubled risk of suicidal behaviour. There has been a fivefold increase in eating disorders among 11 to 16 year-olds, according to the NHS Digital mental health of children and young people in England survey. The Nuffield Foundation predicts that GCSE results will worsen steadily over the years to come, when fewer than 40% of pupils will achieve good grades in maths and English. The decline in children being exposed to books and reading skills is now becoming evident, and many organisations, such as BookTrust, are striving to encourage reading and to persuade children to pick up books and become lovers of the written word.

Another worrying concern for us all, as highlighted last year by the Children’s Commissioner, is that 59% of children first saw pornography by accident and 27% have seen pornography by the age of 11. One mother told me that her four year-old was abused by a 10 year-old who said to her, “I’m going to rape you and you’re going to like it”. Where did he get that kind of language from?

In one Demos focus group, every single girl had received unsolicited sexual images. There is also evidence that children are now using mainstream social media to host live sexual content for payment. How did we get to this? Why have we allowed it to happen? The proportion of children reported as perpetrators of sexual offences is rising, driven significantly by early exposure to pornography. This is something that I have long lobbied to prevent. Thank goodness we now have Ofcom-implemented protection due to the Online Safety Act.

Social media can be addictive and consume time and energy in a negative way, especially for young people. Research from the World Health Organization has found that 11% of adolescents globally show signs of problematic social media use: addiction-like symptoms, including the inability to control usage; withdrawal symptoms when offline; neglect of other activities; and signs of anxiety. In England, 20% of 11 year-old girls and 23% of 13 year-old girls have problematic usage. That is three to five times higher than adult alcohol dependency and 3.5 times higher than adult drug dependency. Let us release our children from this dependency and anxiety. Let us set them free from all this. We must do that.

Children need a world of positive role models, giving them a holistic understanding of the world around them, presented in a verified way, not an online environment that distorts their thinking, behaviour and perception of the world with misinformation, conspiracy theories and fake news—a world filled with influencers, a world making them feel inadequate. My daughter is a teacher and is having to deal with the outcome of all this on a daily basis, like so many other teachers across the country.

What is social media doing to our children today and exposing them to? What type of future is ahead of them? If we do nothing now to protect our children and grandchildren, we should be ashamed of ourselves, as the damage to young minds and heartaches of families will only increase. There is an argument for more parental control, but parents cannot look over their shoulder 24/7; they need our help.

I urge the Government to back the amendment and help to protect our children, because there is a strong case from teachers, health practitioners, parents and law enforcement that children under the age of 16 should not be able to access social media accounts. We have a huge responsibility to safeguard our precious children and their well-being. The amendment is vital. It would send a clear message to those who would harm our children and allow them to be scarred for life. As I always say and will say again, childhood lasts a lifetime. That is why I wholeheartedly support Amendment 94A, and I urge other Members to do the same.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 94A, along with the noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin and Lady Cass, and the noble Lord, Lord Nash. In the interests of time I will not talk about the other amendments, but I commend the noble Baroness on her introduction of this group of amendments.

There are a handful of issues that consume me on a daily basis, and the negative impact of social media on millions of children and young people in this country is one of them. Despite the important introduction of the Online Safety Act to control illegal material and prevent children accessing harmful and inappropriate content, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, expertly articulated, not a week goes by in this place when we do not hear how Ofcom is struggling to enact and enforce this important legislation. That law does nothing to protect the next generation from social media, with its highly addictive algorithms, its constant notifications, its ability for unsolicited contact by people unknown to children and its barrage of content that young people are not even seeking or searching for. While it might not fall under the definitions of illegal or harmful, it is still misogynistic, divisive and shaming; diminishes our children’s self-worth; is racist, dangerous, and violent; and contains a disproportionate amount of misinformation and disinformation. We are going backwards because, if we do nothing, the situation will only get worse as the tech companies continue to fight for our children and young people’s attention and develop their social media products to get as many eyeballs on their platforms as they can in the pursuit of profit.

As one of the handful of parents in this place with primary-age children, I am deeply concerned by the constant stream of case studies that I hear from other parents about the effect that social media is having on their children, who have had to move school due to bullying on social media, who have had the police turn up on their doorstep due to their children being groomed or exploited on social media platforms, or whose child is in in-patient mental health care for eating disorders they are suffering from that have been amplified due to social media use.

I am deeply concerned having listened closely to our teachers, who, as we have heard, are having to grapple on a daily basis in the classroom with the consequences of the content that our children and young people are being bombarded with on social media and the impact it is having on their attainment. That is no surprise, given that Ofcom tells us that the average time our children are spending on these platforms is 21 hours a week.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Benjamin Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 97, to which I have added my name. In Committee, I likened the waiting for Wales argument to a legislative Waiting for Godot. Well, Godot has arrived in the form of a very thorough evaluation of the first three years of the Welsh legislation. The overall message, as we have heard, is very positive.

I was particularly struck by what the report says about positive parenting, as this was a key argument used by my noble friend the Minister in rejecting the original amendment in Committee. The report makes it clear that this is not an either/or situation. The abolition of the reasonable punishment defence in Wales has been implemented in such a way as to promote and support positive parenting practices. Thus, the report makes it clear that, thanks in part to the introduction of a parenting support scheme which we have heard about, the response to physical punishment is proportionate and focused on behaviour change rather than criminalisation.

Elsewhere, the report notes that the aim of the Act was to protect children’s rights while adopting an educating and preventive approach which avoids criminalising parents. It suggests that this aim is being realised in practice, in that implementation is acting not to criminalise parents but to help educate and support them in managing behaviours differently. This addresses one of the fears sometimes expressed about abolition of the defence.

I argued in Committee that this is a very much a children’s rights issue, and the report points to research that indicated that professionals view the Act as having enhanced their ability to safeguard children’s rights, with nearly 60% reporting that it had either supported or greatly supported them in protecting children’s right to be free from violence.

This is, of course, an interim report, but in Committee my noble friend referred to it as helping to build the evidence base needed for the Government to make a decision, and I think it is fair in its claim to provide a robust initial evidence base. I am not sure what further evidence the Government need to be added to the pile that already exists. This amendment is very much a compromise, and I can see no good reason for them not to accept it. I hope they will, because otherwise it could be a very long time before English children are free from the harmful effects of what the four Children’s Commissioners described as an outdated and morally repugnant law.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 28 in the name of my noble friend Lady Tyler, which I hope the Government will support. I should like to speak on Amendment 97 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on the legal defence of reasonable punishment. I declare an interest as vice-president of Barnardo’s, which has been campaigning for the end of the reasonable punishment defence, along with its partners in the children’s sector.

We already know that physical punishment can cause significant harm to a child, including poorer mental health and increased behavioural problems, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has said. Any child who is physically punished is also at greater risk of even more serious abuse, which can be devastating.

Professionals who work with children can find it difficult to assess and respond to potential risks, since distinguishing between physical punishment and abuse is challenging. As a result, Wales and Scotland have acted to remove the reasonable punishment defence from the law, but England has not done so. Children in this nation remain uniquely vulnerable, with less protection from assault than adults and other children elsewhere in the UK.

I turn my attention to the Welsh review, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Some 95% of parents in Wales now know that physical punishment is illegal and 86% believe it is ineffective. We feared widespread criminalisation of parents, but that has not occurred. Fewer than five cases have been referred to the CPS, with no convictions to note. Instead, families have been diverted to supportive parenting programmes, which have led to positive outcomes for many of them, including in children’s behaviour and parental well-being. Professionals have also reported greater clarity and confidence when dealing with such cases. That shows that the law is working but, most importantly, that children are being protected.

There is widespread support for change. Polling from the NSPCC has shown that the majority of safe- guarding professionals, including teachers, healthcare professionals and the police, would like to see the end of physical punishment of children. More than 300 public figures also supported a change in the law. The Government wished to wait until evidence from Wales on the law change was available, but that evidence is now available.

The amendment before us does not seek to legislate the defence away at once. We ask only that the Government meaningfully consider the evidence from Wales and consider abolishing the so-called reasonable punishment defence in England through future legislation, within six months of this Bill becoming law.

When the proof of harm is so extensive and the evidence of change is so promising, I strongly feel that asking for a transparent response to that evidence is a reasonable and proportionate request. Children should not have to wait indefinitely for clarity on what their rights are, or for protection and fairness when evidence that could potentially change their lives already exists. I ask other noble Lords across the House to stand with children and give their support to this amendment, and, more importantly, for the Government to accept the amendment, as that would show that they too put children at the heart of the matter when it comes to equal protection for children. As I always say, childhood lasts a lifetime, so let us do it.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I too have added my name to Amendment 97. As we have heard, the law changes in Wales on reasonable punishment are going well. Children in England have less protection in law from assaults than adults and their peers in Scotland and Wales. The law as it stands is unclear and open to interpretation, making it harder to safeguard children.

As a teacher, I know first-hand the challenges that this poses for professionals safeguarding children. When the law contains ambiguity, safeguarding becomes more difficult. I have come across cases where children have reported that if they do not get good grades then they will be beaten. That is a safeguarding risk that I would report, but for safeguarding leads it is a nightmare that they have to judge the extent of any injuries. The fact that you can still legally hit a child with calculation is bizarre and barbaric. That is reflected in the NSPCC’s YouGov polling from August that 90% of social workers, 77% of healthcare professionals and 75% of teachers all believe that the law in England should be changed—and they are voters—while some 81% of parents with a child under 18 think that physical punishment of any sort is unacceptable.

Like many others, I want to see the reasonable punishment defence removed entirely to give all children protection from assault. I support the amendment as a clear and pragmatic compromise to bring in, in a timely way, the evidence that the Government want to see on the impact of implementing this change on parents, professionals and public services. The Government’s openness to reviewing the evidence and hearing from a range of people on this issue is welcome. I therefore hope they will support this amendment in that spirit.

Given the challenges that the current law poses for professionals, it is welcome to see the positive impact that removing the defence has had in Wales. Professionals across safeguarding, education and healthcare report that the law has clarified and strengthened their ability to protect children’s rights and have better conversations with parents. That reinforces the call from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health that removing the defence would support professionals in safeguarding children and providing clearer advice to families. The report has also shown that the concerns around criminalising parents have not materialised. In fact, it has meant that families have been able to access support.

With zero convictions and fewer than five cases referred to the CPS but hundreds of families accessing parenting support, the report concludes that the aim of the Act—not to criminalise parents but to help to educate and support them in managing behaviours differently—is being realised. I quote that in Wales

“the law is working and making significant progress in protecting children’s rights”.

Employment, Education and Training: Young People

Baroness Benjamin Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right to highlight both the regional differences and the correlation with disadvantage in identifying levels of young people not in education, employment or training—or NEETs, as they are rather horribly known. The problem needs early intervention and targeting. The Department for Education is supporting local authorities to identify young people who are at risk of becoming NEET, so that they can be supported to stay in education and training in the first place. My own department, DWP, is reforming careers support and introducing a youth guarantee so that, right across England, every young person, from 18 to 21, has the option of apprenticeships, employment or quality training. We have also convened a small advisory group, including the mayoral combined authorities, local councils and others to make sure that we pursue a mission to reduce the number of young people who are NEET in a targeted way.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, the charity First Star Scholars—I declare an interest as patron—works with children in care and has a success rate of over 72% of them obtaining GCSEs and 50% attending university. Care-experienced children usually under- perform, with less than 20% achieving GCSEs and just 6% progressing to university. Will the Government agree to meet with me and First Star Scholars to address this so-called care cliff to help reduce the number of care leavers not in education, employment or training and enhance educational outcomes for these vulnerable young people?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising such an incredibly important point. I have the pleasure of having responsibility in my department for disadvantaged groups including care leavers, and I would be delighted to meet her and talk about this further. For a brief outline, here are some of the things the DWP does to support care leavers in different ways: they get priority access to universal credit and budgeting support and help; care leavers in staying-put arrangements can claim benefits under their own steam until 21 in many cases; and, crucially, we have a second-chance learning scheme, which means that if you are 18 to 21 and a care leaver, you can claim benefits and still study full-time to catch up on education you may have missed earlier. There is a lot more, which I cannot wait to tell her about. I look forward to meeting her.

Youth Unemployment

Baroness Benjamin Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid that the time allowed for this Private Notice Question has now elapsed, so we will move on to the next business.

In fact, the time allowed for this Private Notice Question has not elapsed. We have an extra five minutes, which is wonderful. I therefore call the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, thank goodness for that. Black, Asian and culturally diverse people are more likely to be unemployed, and the 16 to 24 year-olds in this group are no exception. They are finding themselves at the very bottom of the pile during this pandemic and are hardest hit, with little hope of finding a job. So what pathways and policies are being put in place beyond the six-month Kickstart Scheme to reassure these vulnerable young people, many of whom are suffering from anxiety and depression?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

The point I would like to make to the noble Baroness is that the ethnic minority employment rate reached a record high of 67.5%, which is an increase on the previous quarter. It is not good enough, but it was an upward trend. The point that the noble Baroness makes is completely justified; this is of great concern. I should say that the Government have unlocked an additional £150 million from dormant bank accounts to support charities and social enterprises help vulnerable individuals into work.

Pensions: British Citizens Overseas

Baroness Benjamin Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Benjamin]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the frozen pensions policy on the choices of people who would like to move abroad or stay overseas during their retirement years.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Altmann) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have a clear position which has remained consistent for around 70 years: UK state pensions are payable worldwide and uprated abroad only where we have a legal requirement to do so. The Government have made no assessment of the impact of this policy on pensioners’ choices of residence.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Last November, the right honourable Oliver Letwin met with an international consortium of British pensioners and the chair of the All-Party Group on Frozen British Pensions and he committed that the Government would examine the case for partial uprating by commissioning cross-departmental research into the likely costs and savings—which was great news. Will the Minister please give an update on that work? Will we see the outcome before the Government bring in partial uprating regulations that freeze overseas pensions yet again for another year, continuing this injustice?

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, the Department for Work and Pensions has not made any estimates of the costs of this uprating. External sources have suggested that the costs of partial uprating are estimated at around £200 million a year by 2020.

Pensions: British Pensioners Overseas

Baroness Benjamin Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Benjamin]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they are giving to uprating fully or partly the state pensions of British pensioners currently living overseas whose pensions are frozen.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

My Lords, there are no plans to change the current arrangements for payment of state pension to those recipients who live outside the UK. The policy of this coalition Government is to uprate UK state pensions where they are legally required to do so under the terms of EU law or through a bilateral social security arrangement which covers uprating. Changing the policy as suggested would incur significant costs—moneys which are currently just not available.

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but it is unbelievable that British pensioners who have paid in their full contribution do not receive their full pension when they retire to many parts of the world, including to the Commonwealth. If full uprating is thought to be costly and a liability for back-payment claims, will the Government adopt the solution of partial uprating of frozen pensions at their current level, since this involves neither of these barriers? It is affordable, it is cost effective and it will stop the gradual decline of pensions year on year. I beg the Government to include a partial uprating option in the Budget and put an end to this injustice once and for all.

[Lord Freud]

I regret I cannot give my noble friend any comfort. Full uprating to today’s levels would cost us more than £0.5 billion and while partial uprating—in other words, just starting to move current levels of pensions up by the increases—would start off being much less than that, those costs would rise in the medium term to a level similar to the full uprating.

Children: Contact with Fathers

Baroness Benjamin Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

Yes, my Lords. There is huge value in the role of grandparents. One of the encouraging things in a project in which I have been involved is how enthusiastic retired people are in mentoring youngsters—particularly youngsters making that difficult transition to adulthood. There is a lot that older people can contribute.

[Baroness Benjamin]

My Lords, childhood lasts a lifetime, and far too many children are growing up as victims of family breakdown and lone-parenting households, which appears to be leading us towards a catastrophic social meltdown unless urgent action is taken. Does my noble friend agree that part of the solution is to encourage even more men to become primary school teachers and role models to the thousands of children who are growing up without any male influence in their lives, and put an even greater emphasis on the teaching of relationship, parenting and social and life skills in schools?

[Lord Freud]

Well, my Lords, there being very few males in primary schools is an important point, although clearly one off my brief. It is a valuable point which needs to be looked at.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Benjamin Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Benjamin]

My Lords, I was delighted that the gracious Speech contained several mentions of the intention to focus on the well-being and education of children and young people by putting measures in place to bridge the social mobility gap. I congratulate the coalition Government on their continuing efforts to address this issue. In my speech, I would like to concentrate on how even more can be achieved through cultural education within the curriculum.

Exposure to art and cultural experiences is the perfect way to build confidence, satisfy our well-being and stimulate the imagination, and the earlier children are provided with this type of stimulus the better. However, recently I chaired a Westminster Education Forum conference at which several educationalists expressed a desire for a clear direction, a national plan, as suggested in the Henry review, on how to deliver cultural education in the classroom as many did not feel confident about what was expected from them and how best to deliver cultural provision to the children.

I believe that one effective way to do so is through the discovery of Shakespeare. The many beneficial attributes this has are not all obvious for, as well as words and language, connections with music, drama and art can also be gained from studying Shakespeare. It can be used to help children develop a critical eye, teach them simple philosophy, build their natural curiosity and help them to learn to analyse information in a fun and exciting way.

Shakespeare is loved across the world. He is the most performed playwright internationally. Half of the world’s schoolchildren study Shakespeare. In surveys, Shakespeare is cited as one of the reasons many people feel proud to be British, and yet here in the UK so many children leave school with minimal exposure to this icon who is part of their cultural heritage. Whole generations encounter Shakespeare only as a topic for examination and therefore believe that Shakespeare is not for them or is too difficult.

Well, a change is a coming. I heard it for myself. Yes, the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust has plans for young children to be exposed to Shakespeare. It has started a campaign focusing on children aged nine to 11 in primary schools to discover Shakespeare. Too difficult? Too prescriptive? Too elitist? No, no, no. To be or not to be, that is the question. Well it will be, because in March 2014 Shakespeare Week will be launched as a major new national schools and cultural campaign to open up Shakespeare’s legacy to every child in Britain, uniting our numerous cultural venues and our versatile artistic practitioners in a nationwide celebration of Shakespeare’s creative influence. It will be a bold and original approach to learning.

Modern learning tools will be used to engage the children as several free online resources will bring the Bard to life for every subject in the curriculum. For geography, Shakespeare’s characters will be used to spark off children’s imaginations on the subject—for example, matching characters to countries. There will be resources demonstrating how pulleys helped fairies fly over the Elizabethan stage as an introduction to engineering. There will also be resources used to spark off children’s interest in writing and literature and lead them to discover other writers, historical and contemporary. As well, it will help them form a love for art and design because their young minds will not be influenced by negative assumptions. It will inspire them to have aspirations in whatever they choose to become and assist them to achieve their goals.

Most importantly, it will give them the opportunity to have fun with Shakespeare at an age when magic can still happen and before someone tells them, “It is too difficult for you, so do not bother”. Furthermore, it will provide teachers with a free, flexible resource to draw on, as much or as little as they like, in any subject they choose.

The pupil premium is encouraging schools to seek imaginative ways to broaden their outlook in provision for children. In just three weeks since the launch of Shakespeare Week, many have embraced this opportunity. Five hundred schools have already registered to take part in Shakespeare Week and the figure is rising, which is simply wonderful. I have seen at first hand how joyfully and enthusiastically young people react when they are exposed to Shakespeare. They identify with the characters who are so cleverly written as they reflect contemporary society and deal with all the emotions and feelings that young children are likely to grow up to experience: jealousy, anger, humour, revenge, guilt, fear, love and passion, emotions which are felt across all cultures.

The lyrical rhythm of the language is great for those with autism, dyslexia and learning difficulties. Many people from challenging backgrounds who are rarely exposed to the theatre are often transformed by discovering Shakespeare. The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust has been charged with promoting the enjoyment and understanding of Shakespeare’s works, life and times. The trust has been awarded Arts Council funding to support Shakespeare Week for just two years, 2014 and 2015. I truly believe that this initiative should go beyond that time. It will ignite young children’s appetite for art and culture and develop confidence which will indirectly have an effect on their ability to learn across the curriculum in the classroom and beyond, giving them a lasting legacy. So I ask my noble friend whether the Government will consider making Shakespeare Week an annual event in the primary school calendar for the sake of our children’s holistic well-being, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

The first book I chose as my school speech day prize back in 1961 at the age of 12 was the Complete Works of William Shakespeare. Little did I know that the content would be a revelation to me and serve me well in my career. The works of Shakespeare were written for all people and were not meant to be exclusive, but inclusive. It is worth noting that at the television BAFTAs last Sunday two awards were given to Shakespeare productions. Yes, the Bard is still thrilling audiences 400 years on.

Shakespeare Week is an important initiative for future generations, so let us make it a permanent resource and give all our young children the opportunity to feel that they are part of something great. Who knows, one of them could even become the Shakespeare of the future. With that, I say:

“Good night, good night! Parting is such sweet sorrow,

That I shall say good night till it be morrow”.