Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

In conclusion, I have had so many parents stop me to say that we need to get this through. One young person approached me on my computer the other day to say, “Please keep going—we need this change”. A mum from Manchester said, “As parents we are desperate, please do whatever you can to protect our youth who are drowning in mental health crises due to the impact of social media”. Another mum implored, “It is too late for my kids, but we need a ban for the younger ones. We have to do something to ensure that no other child goes through what mine has”. Sometimes, we have to say enough is enough and that we cannot wait any longer. The alternative is that in the quest for perfection we lose the good, and in doing so we condemn thousands more children to harms, ignoring the change we desperately need to see.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, I have absolutely no desire to stifle debate, but I ask anyone who wishes still to speak to be very mindful of the number of votes we are expecting at the end of this group. We also have very important dinner break business scheduled for tonight. Please be brief and to the point so we can move on with this important debate.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I have two original points to make that have not been covered at all. We should bring ourselves back to the fact that there is an enormous amount of agreement around this Chamber. I think everyone will say we feel enormous sympathy for the families, some of whom are here today, who have lost family as a result of contact with social media. We all accept that we want 16 year-olds on the day of their birthday to be able to stride out into the world confident, capable, ready to step into adulthood. Most of us want to rein in the overwhelmingly powerful digital companies which have been allowed to run wild across the world by political decisions made by adults. I particularly commend the right reverend Prelate for naming the spectre in the room—Donald Trump and his tech bro friends. He is a spectre here and is now recorded in Hansard.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that we have very broad agreement that the Online Safety Act has been a total failure and Ofcom is not delivering what it should be doing. Those are the points of agreement. Where my conclusions drive me is that I would back Amendment 91 from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, with some caveats, which I will get back to, but it is not my intention to vote for any of the ban amendments before us today. I have a great deal of sympathy with the Lib Dems’ brave effort to find a way through a middle road and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, almost swayed me that we should make a gesture. The case I put, argument one, is that your Lordships’ House is not the right place: we are not the right people to be making this decision. Many of us have joined since the depths of Covid, but those who were here then will remember when the House went largely remote and lots of people who had never used a computer before were suddenly on Zoom. We met their grandkids: “There you are, Granny. You are off mute now”.

I invite your Lordships to look at the people around you. We are extraordinarily unrepresentative of the country in many ways, but particularly in terms of age. This is where I draw on the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, but come to a different conclusion. I was also in the learning centre and spoke to some of the same pupils. They overwhelmingly said, “We do not want a ban”. My argument is that we must stop doing politics to young people. We must give young people agency and a sense of control. We have bequeathed to them a disastrous, damaging world; failing to give them a say in this is absolutely the wrong way forward.

On that point, I have a serious proposal for the Minister. In the consultation, are the Government prepared to include a people’s assembly that represents young people from around the country? Rather than just asking young people to tick a box in a survey—we all know what happens with “yes” or “no” votes—this would give them the chance to deliberate on how they think we can control the future and improve their situation.

My second point is important and has not been said before. In this debate we have heard a huge amount of scapegoating of social media. Social media is a mirror: it reflects the misogyny, violence, racism and fake news that runs across and through our society, it does not create it. If we could wave a magic wand and get young people off social media, they would still be affected by the dreadful levels of poverty and the schools that operate as exam factories, putting them under tremendous pressure and subjecting them to unbearable discipline. They would still have parents who are struggling to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. They would still encounter all the misogyny and racism in our society. When we are debating and voting on this, we must understand that social media is a mirror; it is not creating where we are now.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 95 to 97 not moved.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a convenient time to break for dinner break business. We will return to the Bill not before 8.36 pm—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I meant 9.36 pm —wishful thinking; I was just checking that your Lordships are all with me—to allow time for ping-pong on the Holocaust Memorial Bill.

Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 9.36 pm.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I too will be brief. I was slightly surprised at the need for Amendment 102. If I have understood correctly, the Government have committed to establishing a child protection agency and are currently consulting on it. I absolutely understand that the noble Lord wants to raise this because, clearly, implementation will be crucial if we are to avoid blurring lines of accountability and creating a bureaucracy. But it will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say on that.

We covered standards for children in need thresholds in Committee. On these Benches, we retain the view that we need flexibility in the system so that practitioners can use their professional judgment to look at the overall situation of a child and keep it under review. But I absolutely accept that there are real problems at what one might call the top end of Section 17, with an extraordinary number of children who are suffering child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation still being classified as “children in need” rather than “child protection”.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, each of these amendments would introduce a new clause, referring to the establishment of the child protection authority and consistent support for children in need, as we have heard. This group raises important issues about child safety, well-being and support. I assure the noble Lord that the Government are, as he outlined, completely committed to working in this area.

Amendment 102, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, seeks to impose a binding timetable for the establishment of the child protection agency. Just by way of background, establishing a child protection authority was one of the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. In a Statement to the House of Commons on 8 April 2025, the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence against Women and Girls announced that the Government will establish a child protection authority in England, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, alluded to.

On 11 December 2025, we published a consultation on the child protection authority, which sets out its proposed roles, responsibilities and powers. This will help to make the child protection system clearer and more unified and ensure that there is ongoing improvement through effective support for practitioners. The design and delivery of this authority require consultation, including with child protection experts and Victim Support, to ensure that it has the right constitution and powers. Given this, we do not think it is prudent to agree an arbitrary timeline, but we will work to publish the government response this summer, following which we will move to legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, I welcome the amendments that the Government have tabled to Clause 8. I think they will meet the aims of our Amendment 35, so I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the additional support that the Government will offer to care leavers.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and Baronesses for their positive comments today; they are a measure of the fact that all of us in this Chamber want to put the needs of the most vulnerable people in our society at the centre of the Bill. I think the Government have clearly put across that we are strongly committed to improving support for care leavers, both through the measures in the Bill on Staying Close, local offer and corporate parenting and through our other programmes of work, such as the care leaver covenant and the care leavers interministerial board, all of which seek to ensure that young people leaving care have stable homes, access to health services and support to build lifelong loving relationships and are engaged in education, employment and training.

We want to support those in care and preparing to leave care before they reach adulthood, and to ensure that they have the same support as all young people. They will of course benefit from the wider changes that we are making for all young people in this space; we have had some fantastic discussions about the need for financial literacy for all young people in different places over the last few months.

I emphasise that in November the independent curriculum assessment review published its report, along with the Government’s response. As part of the review, we are taking forward recommendations that will help to deliver a high-quality curriculum for every young person. One key recommendation is to embed applied knowledge throughout the curriculum, including financial literacy. We have given a clear commitment in our response to the review to strengthen financial education through both the maths and the citizenship curriculum so that all young people and children have the skills they will need in adulthood. These commitments will benefit those children in care and preparing leave care.

Amendment 35, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, seeks to ensure that Staying Close support includes support to access services relating to financial support and literacy. Having said what I did about the review in general, I acknowledge that care leavers have particular and additional needs in this area. I fully endorse the noble Baroness’s intent with this amendment, recognising the importance of care leavers being properly informed of the financial support available to them as they transition to independence.

We have listened to concerns from both Houses about ensuring that care leavers receive the support they need from local authorities, particularly with financial management, and helping care leavers to develop the skills and knowledge that they require in this area. That is why we have tabled two government amendments to Clause 8. Amendment 39, in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith, adds services relating to financial literacy to the list of services in Section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017, meaning that local authorities will have to publish information about those services as part of their local offer for care leavers. Amendment 40, also in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith, amends Clause 8 to require each local authority to include information about the arrangements that it has in place for providing financial support to care leavers in its local offer. In bringing forward these amendments, I acknowledge the continued advocacy for care leavers to receive assistance with financial literacy and financial support that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, has provided in this area, and I thank her for that.

Most care leavers already receive a pathway plan before leaving care that should cover their financial capability, money management skills and strategies to develop these abilities. Adding these government amendments will ensure that care leavers are better aware of the services available to them, and it will increase local authorities’ accountability in supporting care leavers to receive the support they need. That further underscores how the Government have listened to the voices of children and young people because, as we have heard and as everyone engaged in this area acknowledges, when we listen to care leavers’ requests for support, the message that comes across loud and clear is that they want more support in understanding their finances. For that reason, we consider Clause 8 the most effective place for the amendment, ensuring a robust and consistent level of support for every care leaver, not only those accessing Staying Close.

Importantly, including the amendments in Clause 8 does not remove or dilute the support for care leavers receiving Staying Close. Financial literacy remains a key factor in helping young people to find and, importantly, keep accommodation and will continue to be considered as part of the overall assessment of their ability to maintain a tenancy. This will be reflected in the initial programme guidance we will be sharing with local authorities before April this year as the national rollout of the programme begins. This has been developed in collaboration with local authorities, stakeholders and people with care experience and will be updated after evaluation of local authority practice and ahead of the publication of final statutory guidance. I hope that this answers the questions that the noble Baroness asked in moving her amendment, that noble Lords are reassured, and that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful and comprehensive response. The fact that the government amendments will go into Clause 8 and my amendment was to Clause 7 does not matter to me. What matters is that those government amendments will be there and that the care-experienced young people will now have access to the financial support and financial literacy that they need. I thank the Government again for their extremely constructive and helpful response. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their interest in this area. As he opened the group, I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Watson for his sincere interest, as we heard in Committee, when we had a good exploration of the issues.

I will first discuss three amendments together: Amendments 37, 38 and 59. Amendments 37 and 38, tabled by my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie, seek a review of current Staying Put funding and the introduction of a national minimal allowance for Staying Put arrangements. Amendment 59 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, proposes extending current Staying Put duties to the age of 25. We know that the existing Staying Put duties, which continue until a young person reaches 21, enable local authorities to support young people to remain longer in the stable and secure foster homes they know. This continuity helps them to step into adulthood with the same opportunities and life chances as their peers. We recognise that additional stability at a crucial age.

We remain firmly committed to supporting young people in Staying Put arrangements. The provisional local government finance settlement includes continued funding of £100 million through the first multiyear settlement in a decade for local authorities supporting these arrangements. I am sure that all Members who have had local authority experience will recognise that multiyear settlement as crucial in bringing stability back into local government finance. As I said, this will provide greater certainty and enable effective sufficiency planning for Staying Put arrangements.

However—and I emphasise this again—we must also ensure that we prioritise addressing the gaps in current provision with the available resources that we have. That is particularly the case for those moving into independent living at 18 who have not been able to remain with their former foster carers and for those with the most complex needs. This is precisely why we are introducing statutory Staying Close duties. Under these duties, all former relevant children under the age of 25, including those who have a Staying Put arrangement, will receive Staying Close support where their welfare requires it. This will help them find and keep suitable accommodation, and access the wraparound services they need to thrive.

As we introduce a number of new duties for care leavers through the Bill, it is essential that we allow these changes to embed and begin to deliver the outcomes we expect before we review Staying Put and look to amend or include further requirements within the duty. I hope that this gives some comfort to my noble friend Lord Watson. We are not seeking to ignore his comments; we are looking at this in a pragmatic way that will bring things forward.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, asked about the initial cost estimates, which amount to several hundred million pounds. Further proper assessment is therefore needed, and we will not shy away from that. Further assessment of the impact of local authority funding will be needed, in this changing picture, for both residential and foster care. As has been set out, we must prioritise those gaps. I know that this is a difficult message to get across, but we need to make sure that, through Staying Close, we reach as many young people as possible.

Amendments 41 and 42 were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Amendment 41 seeks to require local authorities to publish information in their local offer about transition arrangements for care leavers in relation to health and primary care. While fully supporting the aim of the amendment, we believe that it is not required, as there is already an expectation that local authorities will include details of services that may assist care leavers in relation to health and well-being in their local offer.

Similarly, the Government support the intention behind Amendment 42, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which would require that general practice contracts have due regard to the additional health needs of care leavers under the age of 25 when negotiating general practice contracts in the future. However, again, it is not required, as there are already clear expectations in statutory guidance for local authorities, integrated care boards and NHS England to have effective plans in place for looked-after children to make a smooth transition to adulthood, including continuation of access to the health advice and services they need. Additionally, the corporate parenting responsibilities that will be introduced through the Bill, which we will go on to discuss, will require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and NHS England, as relevant authorities, to be alert to matters that might adversely affect the well-being of looked-after children and care leavers in the exercise of their functions, including negotiating GP services.

Amendment 95, tabled by right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, seeks to introduce a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to consult on and publish a national offer for care leavers. Throughout the Bill, the Government are taking significant steps to ensure that young people leaving care are not left to navigate adulthood alone. Our aim is clear: to ensure that every care leaver has a stable home, access to necessary health services, support to build lasting relationships, and the opportunity to thrive in education, employment and training. These are the foundations that every young person deserves, and care leavers should be no exception.

Care leavers’ legal entitlements are already set out in the Children Act 1989, supported by regulations and statutory guidance. The Children and Social Work Act 2017 strengthened this by requiring local authorities to consult on and publish a local offer for care leavers. Statutory guidance makes it clear that this local offer must include information on both the support that care leavers are legally entitled to and any additional help a local authority chooses to provide. Clause 8 of the Bill further strengthens those expectations. Here I am addressing in particular the argument on local as against national that the right reverend Prelate made.

Most importantly, it is local authorities that are best placed to understand the needs of their young people. Crucially, this support should be shaped in consultation and by understanding the needs of care leavers themselves. Therefore, the amendment risks unintentionally creating a one-size-fits-all approach that leaves care leavers in different areas and with different requirements not getting the support that best meets their needs.

With regard to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I suggest that her comments about the cost of foster caring are possibly more relevant to the next group, under Amendment 110C.

I recognise that we are putting in place measures that will take some time to embed and move forward, but I hope that noble Lords will understand that we are absolutely committed to improving the life chances of all young people and, in this case, particularly of young people in care. With those comments, I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for those remarks. I will just start on the point that she finished on: that the Government are totally committed to ensuring that all young people have the support that they need. I do not question that. It is unfortunate that there seems to be a cohort of young people who are in foster care, and when they reach the age of 17, they may be able to continue with their foster parents, if they want to and the foster parents are happy to keep them, but there will not be the national minimum allowance, which applies to 16 and 17 year-olds. So, it is incumbent on the foster carers themselves to make up that shortfall. In many cases, with the best will in the world, that simply is not financially possible.

It then opens up the situation where some young people, having just turned 18, have to find alternative arrangements. I take the point that my noble friend the Minister made about wraparound care, the local authority’s offer and the Staying Close arrangements. All those are valuable, and most young people in that situation will make use of them and take advantage of them. But there are some who will not be able to do so. I stress the fact that, in seeking for the national minimum allowance to be extended beyond 17, it would apply only to those situations where the foster family felt able to keep the child and the child wanted to keep the family, as it were. It would not apply to every child of that age.

I am not quite sure about the answer my noble friend gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on her question about cost. In my Amendment 37 on a review, there is no cost implicit. My noble friend the Minister gave a ballpark figure of several hundred million. I do not know whether that would be the case or not: it would depend on the outcome of the review. I had hoped that she might say—although obviously it was never my intention that this should go in the Bill—that the Government would undertake that review. I cannot see any harm in undertaking a review of the Staying Put arrangements that have been in place now for 12 years, since 2014.

I cannot avoid saying that I am disappointed in the response. There are many options for young people. The place I am coming from is: how would any noble Lord who had a child who turned 18 feel if they were obliged to leave home—I am not talking about going to university or college—and find other arrangements at that important and psychologically difficult time in their life? It is no accident that children in care are far less likely to go to university than their peers who live with their birth parents and are far less likely to take up training and apprenticeships. I just make that point to my noble friend. I am not saying that she is being unsympathetic, but I hoped we could at least have a review, which might have pointed the way forward to advancing the number of young people who turn 18 and are able to stay with their foster parents. Foster parents do such a fantastic job. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, noble Lords will remember from our debate in Committee that on this side of the House we had considerable practical reservations about the Government’s approach to regulating groups of children’s homes and foster care providers. These two amendments aim to improve the process that the Government plan to embark on.

Amendment 63 would simply require an agency or an establishment to provide information about its parent undertaking when it registered with Ofsted and to keep that information regularly updated. I assume that it would make it simpler for future regulation and enforcement if the identity of the parent undertaking was clear from the outset, given the complexity of the ownership structures of some of these groups.

My Amendment 64 aims to strengthen the effectiveness of the enforcement regime by giving it commercial teeth that would impact on these businesses. One would hope that preventing them expanding and restructuring financially or organisationally when they were subject to an improvement plan would lead to speedier compliance with the regulatory framework, as well as preventing a suboptimal group from expanding. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, in the absence of other comments I will turn to Amendments 63 and 64, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, in relation to the provider oversight scheme. The scheme will enable Ofsted to require provider groups to implement an improvement plan across multiple settings where Ofsted reasonably suspects standards are not being met. If the provider group does not adequately implement improvements, Ofsted will be able to issue it with a fine.

Amendment 63 seeks to ensure that, where an applicant for registration with Ofsted is a subsidiary undertaking, the applicant must provide information about its provider group. This information must then be kept updated and new powers would provide for enforcement of these requirements in regulations. I do not believe this amendment is necessary. There are existing powers in Sections 12 and 22 of the Care Standards Act 2000 which we intend to use to impose requirements on an applicant for registration, or a person already registered to carry on an establishment or agency, to provide information in relation to its parent undertaking—for example, contact details for service of relevant notices by email, and information about other subsidiaries under the same parent undertaking.

Amendment 64 seeks to ensure that, when a parent undertaking is required to implement an improvement plan, it is subject to financial and commercial restrictions, including the limitation on the acquisition of further subsidiaries, the opening of new establishments or agencies, and the organisational or financial restructuring of the parent undertaking while the improvement plan is being implemented. The measure as drafted allows for regulations to set out that a person is not a fit and proper person to carry on an establishment or agency where their parent undertaking—the provider group—has failed or is failing to comply with an improvement notice. This will allow Ofsted to refuse registration applications in respect of new settings that are under the ownership or control of the parent undertaking that has failed to comply with provider oversight requirements. The significant restrictions created by this amendment on parent undertakings which are implementing an improvement plan would not be proportionate, given that the purpose of this measure is to require the provider group to implement change quickly across all settings where concerns have been identified.

I turn to government Amendment 65. It is vital to the safeguarding of children that relevant authorities can quickly and efficiently issue notifications and documents where needed to persons carrying on or managing establishments and agencies and parent undertakings. This measure will amend Section 37 of the Care Standards Act 2000 so that Ofsted notices and documents under Part II of the Act can be served by email, giving the option to choose between delivering notifications by post, by hand or by email. This amendment aligns with our wider aims to deliver efficient technological services. It will bring coherence to communications across reforms and eliminate outdated, costly and time-consuming requirements of delivery only by hand or by post. This will reduce the risk of sensitive financial information being lost, and reduce delays to decisions that could impact the delivery of children’s social care services and to resolving concerns about the care that children receive. I hope I have addressed the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and that she will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her remarks. I perhaps accept them more in relation to my Amendment 63 than my Amendment 64, but time will tell how the Government’s plans work out. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 77 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, seeks to remove Clause 22(1) and (2), extending the local authority’s duty of care to looked-after children to the Secretary of State where Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 overlaps Clause 21. From memory, the Minister gave an extensive reply in Committee on this topic, so while we understand the importance of the amendment, we will listen with interest to the Minister, who will share her extensive thoughts on the subject.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, through the Bill, for the first time, key public bodies, from Secretaries of State to schools, NHS organisations and regulators, will be required to be alert to matters that affect looked-after children and care leavers when shaping policy and services. These new corporate parenting duties aim to drive a culture change, tackle stigma and improve outcomes for some of the most vulnerable in our society.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, that the voice of care-experienced young people is crucial in this. The noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, and I are two people in this Chamber who have experience of being corporate parents—I do not know how many others there are. We know just how serious that is. I understand the reference to language, but the responsibilities that come with this are real and important and need to be taken very seriously indeed.

Amendments 75 and 76 in this group were tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. Again, I completely understand where he is coming from, and we have debated this in this Chamber under other debates. These amendments quite rightly seek to strengthen the corporate parent duty by requiring relevant authorities to have due regard to removing or minimising disadvantages faced by looked-after children and care leavers and to take steps to avoid or mitigate any adverse impact of their policies and practices.

We fully share the intent behind these proposals oftackling disadvantage and ensuring that care-experienced young people are not adversely affected by public policy. This is central to our vision for corporate parenting. However, as discussed in Committee, the new corporate parenting responsibilities are broad duties that apply in relation to a corporate parent’s existing functions and can be implemented in a way to fit the unique circumstances of each corporate parent. We believe that our existing measures achieve the aim of tackling disadvantages experienced by looked-after children and care leavers.

Just for a bit of clarity, the current responsibilities require corporate parents to be alert to matters which adversely affect the well-being of the cohort. This will require them to take action as appropriate. I just give the reassurance that this is not just a means of being aware; it comes with responsibilities. Therefore, we anticipate that corporate parents would already consider disadvantages experienced by these young people and how they may be addressed.

We will support implementation through statutory guidance, which will set out the responsibilities and include best practice examples for tackling disadvantage among care-experienced young people. Best practice will draw on not only relevant authorities but wider organisations, including local authorities that have taken action such as representation on governance boards, financial support and discounts, and treating care experience as a protected characteristic. This is the best way to deliver impactful change, not through this amendment, which, as I have outlined, is already sufficiently covered by the clause as drafted. I am delighted to say that we are in contact with Terry Galloway, who is very supportive of the direction we are going in. With his vast experience he will be an invaluable resource, ensuring that we keep moving in the right way.

Amendment 96, also tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, seeks to place a duty on public authorities to include in equality impact assessments an assessment of the impact on persons who are being or have been looked after by a local authority. We are determined to tackle the stigma and discrimination faced by care-experienced young people. This is why the Bill introduces corporate parenting duties for Secretaries of State and public bodies, already requiring them to consider the needs of care-experienced young people with the aim of improving outcomes. Clauses 21 to 25 aim to embed this cohort’s challenges into policy and service design. We will commission an implementation partner to support implementation through provision of training and circulation of best practice, including training on how to effectively assess the impact of policies and practices on looked-after children and care leavers. For this reason, the amendment is unnecessary.

Amendment 77 was tabled by my noble friend Lord Moraes, who I am very pleased to see back in his rightful place in the Chamber. It seeks to amend the exemption on immigration, asylum, nationality and customs functions in respect of looked-after children so that action that would be taken in adherence with the corporate parenting responsibilities in the exercise of these functions would still be taken where it is not already required by Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. It also seeks to distinguish functions in relation to the acquisition of British citizenship by statutory right from other nationality functions when exercising duties under Section 55 and Clause 21.

While I understand my noble friend’s intent with this amendment, I emphasise that, as my noble friend the Minister noted in Committee, our measures require that public bodies named in this legislation be alert to matters affecting the well-being of looked-after children and care leavers, regardless of immigration status, except when performing asylum, immigration, nationality or customs functions. We fully intend on partnering with the sector and care-experienced young people in the immigration system to make sure that our statutory guidance covers their specific needs and vulnerabilities. We will also ensure that our implementation partner develops and delivers training on this cohort to all new corporate parents. As we have heard, my noble friend the Minister recently met with my noble friend Lady Lister and partner organisations, who were greatly reassured by our proposed actions in this area. I hope that this is sufficient reassurance for my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

Additionally, Department for Education officials will work closely with the Home Office as it develops its proposals in the immigration White Paper to reduce the financial barriers to young adults who have lived here throughout their childhood accessing British nationality.

Local authorities already follow a separate set of corporate parenting principles and are best placed to take steps to consider whether a young person in their care needs support to seek British citizenship. The Home Office has taken significant steps in recent years to support local authorities in ensuring that children in their care are able to access British citizenship, including by introducing an exception in June 2022 that removed the requirement to pay a fee for an application for citizenship registration by children who are looked after by a local authority.

I want to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that we will continue to work with the Home Office on how we can improve the experience of looked-after children and care leavers in the immigration, asylum and nationality system, building on existing measures that the Home Office has taken in this space. The further efforts will include working on proposals set out in the White Paper published on 12 May, Restoring Control Over the Immigration System, to ensure that children who have been in the UK for some time then turn 18 and discover they do not have status are fully supported and are able to regularise their status and settle. This will include a clear pathway for those children in care and care leavers.

The White Paper also sets out that the Home Office will consider measures to reduce the financial barriers to young adults who have lived here through their childhood accessing British nationality. Applying the duty to the asylum system would not require the Home Office to decide asylum claims for young people as soon as possible. Given the steps we are taking in this area to ensure that looked-after children in the immigration system benefit from the corporate parenting measures, we do not see the amendment as necessary.

Amendment 79A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, seeks to ensure that the corporate parenting guidance issued under Clause 24 is laid in draft before Parliament. This amendment has of course been helpfully raised in reference to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report. Our response to the recommendation explained that guidance issued under Clause 24 will not introduce requirements on corporate parents beyond those enabled by this legislation.

The guidance will help corporate parents understand how the duties could be implemented, using examples of best practice. We will develop statutory guidance in partnership with corporate parents and this will then be subject to consultation. This gives all those affected by the changes, including corporate parents, local authorities, looked-after children, care leavers and all of the above an opportunity to have their say. We will also draw on the expertise of the care-experienced community and representative bodies from within the sector, including those who have campaigned for these amendments, to support guidance drafting.

I can assure the noble Lords that their input will form the backbone of guidance. I hope that with those comments I have addressed the right reverend Prelate’s concern and that he will be able to withdraw his amendment.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the short debate that we have had this evening. It is clear that we are all passionate about the same thing—we would not be here at this time on a Monday night if we were not. We are passionate about getting the best deal we can for care leavers and young people in care, and I am very grateful to hear that. The fact that we are hearing that from all the Front Benches gives me some assurance that this is not something that would float away were there to be a change of Government—at least not one to any of the parties in this Chamber tonight.

Moving on quickly, I really appreciate the guidance that has been spoken of, and I accept the assurances of the Minister that there are many matters that we sought to put in the Bill, as is proper on Report, but which can be dealt with in that way before the Act is implemented in due course.

Were I merely alert to the fact that it is late at night and I do not have the support of the Front Benches, I might still waste your Lordships’ next 15 minutes by pushing this to a Division, but I am not only “alert to”, I am “having due regard to” those factors. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 75 and will not press Amendment 76 either.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

82: Clause 26, page 45, line 6, after “section 18” insert “made by the Secretary of State”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my other amendment to Clause 26 at page 45, line 6, would amend Clause 26 to change references to a “statutory instrument” containing regulations made by the Welsh Ministers to a “Welsh statutory instrument” to reflect the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Act 2025.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, this group consists of government amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith. They are Amendments 82 to 85, 244, 245, 249 and 253 in relation to consequential provision for Welsh and Scottish Ministers, and minor and technical changes relating to the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Act 2025.

Amendments 82 to 85 relate to Clause 26 on the employment of children in England and Wales, and simply update references to the Welsh statutory instruments and the procedure to be followed in the Senedd in consequence of changes made by the 2025 Act, which came into force on 1 January 2026.

Amendments 249 and 253 do the same for Clause 67. This is a change that we are making to refine the drafting in the Bill and ensure that the terms used align with the latest legislative developments.

Amendment 244 will confer power on Welsh Ministers to enable them to make provision consequential to Clauses 11, 12(5), 20 and 31 to 36 in relation to matters that are within the legislative competence of the Welsh Parliament. Amendment 245 will confer power on Scottish Ministers to enable them to make provision consequential to Clause 11 in relation to matters that are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. This would ensure that if any such consequential amendments are identified, Scottish and Welsh Ministers could make those changes to the legislation.

I am grateful for the continued engagement of our Welsh and Scottish counterparts on the passage of this landmark legislation. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, we thank the Minister for her clarification of the reasons behind these consequential amendments. They seem entirely reasonable, and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his comments and emphasise again how grateful we are to the devolved Governments for their engagement with the Government on this Bill. We will continue to work closely with them as the Bill progresses through Parliament.

Amendment 82 agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

83: Clause 26, page 45, line 6, at end insert—
“(4A) Regulations under section 18 made by the Welsh Ministers are to be made by Welsh statutory instrument.””Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my other amendment to clause 26 at page 45 line 6.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

87: Clause 27, page 48, line 7, leave out “Except as provided by subsection (3),”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 27, page 48, lines 14 to 18.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, I turn to the first group of amendments to this important Bill on Report. I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I start with a message of reassurance that this Government are committed to hearing from and listening to children about what matters to them most. It is for this very reason that we have laid government Amendment 4 to Clause 1, on family group decision-making. The amendment requires local authorities to seek the wishes and feelings of the child, as opposed to their views, as was in the original drafting, and to give due consideration to those wishes and feelings in exercising their functions under this clause.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, is absolutely right about the importance of the child in these proceedings and the need to make sure that they are included wherever it is appropriate. That includes ascertaining the wishes and feelings of very young children, non-verbal children, and children who may lack capacity and are not able to express their views. This is a complex area that requires the expertise that we have referred to. In making this requirement, the amendment strengthens the requirement on local authorities to hear and give weight to children’s voices, without changing the overall effect of the clause.

The noble Lord, Lord Storey, is absolutely right. From experience, these situations often come out of a state of crisis, where extended family members might not have been expecting the difficulties that were going to come up. It is crucial that there is clarity. As we all know, relationships and families are complex, and we need to do everything that we can. Evidence shows that engaging family networks through the use of family group decision-making meetings can reduce applications for court proceedings and divert children from entering the care system, improving the outcomes for children and their families. It is important to keep that at the front of our deliberations.

I turn to Amendments 1 and 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I completely appreciate the noble Baroness’s desire to ensure that the term “family group decision-making” is well understood and that families are offered evidence-based support. However, given that the family group conference model is one of family group decision-making, we believe that including both as distinct terms in legislation risks creating confusion and undermining the clarity that the noble Baroness is seeking. We do not believe that prescribing a particular model in primary legislation is necessary. Likewise, the term “evidence-based approach” could be interpreted differently and including it could create confusion for local authorities if it is not defined in the clause.

Instead, as my honourable friend the Minister for Children and Families set out to Peers in a round table on this issue on 11 November, we will set out clear principles in statutory guidance that are informed—this is the crucial bit—by the evidence-based family group conference model. The latest estimates we have are that 80% of authorities already use this model. We will make it clear in national statutory guidance that we expect local authorities to consider using this model, and we will direct local authorities towards the strong evidence base for it. The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, talked about evidence repeatedly, so I hope that this addresses her concern.

I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that there is no attempt at dilution here. We want to make sure that we stick to the evidence-informed model all the way through the process. It is an incredibly powerful means of bringing people together and we want to make sure that we use every skill that exists out there to get the very best outcomes for children and their families.

Our intention is to avoid tying local authorities to a single model in legislation, as mandating one approach risks stifling innovation and limiting professional judgment. Local authorities have been clear that flexibility in primary legislation is essential to design services that meet local needs and family circumstances. We have already published the Families First Partnership (FFP) Programme Guide, which sets out clear principles informed by the evidence-based family group conference model. We will continue to embed these principles in updated statutory guidance on pre-proceedings and in the working together guidance, both of which we will publish later this year. Statutory guidance rather than primary legislation is the right place for this. Key organisations and proponents of the family group conference model have contributed to the development of best practice support and resources for local authorities, which we shall also publish later this year.

I turn to Amendment 3, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I share their determination to ensure that children returning home after a period in care receive the right support. Continued breakdowns are heartbreaking and do so much to damage the future life chances of the young people involved, undermining confidence and causing enormous disruption. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, spoke eloquently about the importance of reaching all family, and indeed not just family. Sometimes, extended members of the family circle may be the appropriate people to be involved in this process. Of course, proper preparation is essential. The statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, already provides that local authorities should consider family group decision-making when planning for reunification to support the transition from care to home, and we will continue to support this approach. The care planning regulations make it clear that wider family members should be consulted where appropriate, as I have outlined.

Through this Bill, the Government are introducing a range of measures to ensure that children leaving care receive the necessary support to improve their outcomes. Although we agree that family group decision-making can be an important part of the reunification process, and are mandating measures to ensure young people get the support they need, we are concerned that introducing a second statutory trigger point to offer family group decision-making risks delaying the reunification process for some families. I re-emphasise that we have commissioned the production of best practice support and resource for local authorities on family group decision-making, which makes clear that family group decision-making should be championed as a tool to support reunification. I am happy to share an embargoed copy with noble Lords to demonstrate our commitment to this approach.

Turning to Amendment 5, I recognise that the intention behind the noble Baroness’s amendment is to ensure that children’s welfare needs are prioritised following family group decision-making. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, that we need more carers across the piece—kinship carers and foster carers. We know how vital this is for so many young people across the country.

I re-emphasise that local authorities have existing statutory duties to ensure the safety and welfare of children. In addition, Clause 5 will place a duty on local authorities to publish a kinship local offer, setting out the support available to children living in kinship care in the area, cementing the expectation already set out in statutory guidance. This transparency will reduce barriers to obtaining help and ensure that kinship carers receive the practical support they need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

On the last point on Amendment 5, the noble Baroness talked about the local care offer. Is she able to say today whether she expects that, when the consultation happens and a template is developed for what that will look like, there will be a specific section on reunification? Obviously, that is a rather different context from the other situations.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I can assure the noble Baroness that her comments are fed into the process and that they are listened to.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks; she also comes with huge expertise on this subject. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for not acknowledging his co-signature of Amendment 3.

I was reassured by what the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, said on Amendments 1 and 2. I accept that there could be confusion if you use both terms. I was glad to hear her say that clear principles would be set out in the guidance—as was suggested by my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park—and that there would be no dilution of the models. I thank her very much for that.

I am encouraged by the noble Baroness’s last comments on Amendment 3. I think there is an inconsistency when she points to the recommendations in Working Together to Safeguard Children that there should be family group decision-making meetings at the point of reunification because, as I understand it, that is the same recommendation as there is for using those meetings at the point of care proceedings. The Government have chosen to put one on statute and not the other, but that is, ultimately, the Government’s prerogative. She is, of course, right to bring up the point about delay and avoidable delay, but the choice is between delay and stability. I hope that, where the delay is proportionate, stability really is prioritised in the interests of the child.

In my intervention I touched on the noble Baroness’s remarks on the local support offer. Obviously, I am disappointed that the Government did not accept my Amendments 3 and 5 in particular. I hope that, as they implement this new legislation, local authorities will use all their discretion and creativity to address the needs of specific children in the way that we all, across the House, hope. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

4: Clause 1, page 2, line 24, leave out from “child” to end of line 26 and insert “a local authority must, so far as is reasonably practicable and consistent with the child’s welfare—
(a) ascertain the child’s wishes and feelings regarding the exercise of those functions, and(b) give due consideration (having regard to the child’s age and understanding) to such wishes and feelings of the child as the authority has been able to ascertain.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that local authorities will take into account the wishes and feelings of a child when making decisions about family group decision-making in relation to the child under section 31ZA of the Children Act 1989 (as inserted by clause 1).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

18: Clause 4, page 7, leave out lines 11 to 14
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove provision no longer needed because of the protection provided by the new general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and which came into force on 20 August 2025.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I will Amendment 18, which is in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith. This group covers minor and technical government amendments relating to data protection. These remove Clause 62, and amend certain text in Clauses 4, 13, 18, 23, 26, 27, 34 and 45.

The original drafting sought to clarify that any duties or powers to process personal data are subject to data protection law. However, these references are now unnecessary, following the commencement of Section 106 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 on 20 August 2025. I reassure noble Lords that this absolutely does not remove any data protections; this is about refining drafting to reflect the latest legislative developments.

Section 106 of the 2025 Act introduced a general data protection override into the Data Protection Act 2018. This ensures that the UK’s data protection laws are not overridden by future legislation that imposes a duty or grants a power to process personal data, unless expressly provided otherwise. This does not remove any data protections; this is about refining drafting to reflect the latest legislative changes to the UK’s statute book. I beg to move.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s clarification of the reasons and the impact of these amendments, which seem entirely reasonable.

Schools and Universities: Language Learning

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on securing this debate and acknowledge the enormous amount of work that she does through the APPG and any other channels to make sure that the question of modern languages teaching and learning remains as high on the agenda as it possibly can be.

Why does the teaching and learning of a modern foreign language matter? This debate is partly about the technicalities of improving the supply chain of modern foreign language teachers since, as we have already heard, 50% of modern languages teachers are now recruited from outside of the UK. However, there is a prior question: why does it matter? As we have also heard, figures from government suggest that there are economic and diplomatic, and so on, very good reasons, at both personal and GDP level, why we should have more and more young people who are proficient at languages. We have figures and research for the value of French and Spanish, but also increasingly German, not to mention Mandarin. Noble Lords will all have heard this from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and other places too, and other noble Lords may well expand on this.

These are very good reasons in themselves, but there is another set of reasons for learning a language, one of which is that learning a language is good for you. Many hours of research and research papers have shown that the plasticity of the brain is heightened by learning a language. It increases cognitive flexibility and adaptability, and these are clearly very good reasons and worth while for everyone—even in the later years, should any noble Lord choose to take up a language.

However, perhaps my favourite reason for learning a language is, frankly, that it is fun. With the right pedagogical approach, a classroom in which language teaching and learning is taking place is a fun classroom to work in. It is a real-world skill; it can be deployed, practised and improved by communicating with others in your classroom—from my own personal experience, often to the delight of young people. However, those young people miss out if there are not sufficient, or sufficiently well-trained and qualified, modern languages teachers with whom they can work.

Modern foreign languages have the reputation of being hard subjects because there is a perceived harshness in the marking compared with other subjects. That may or may not be true, but, frankly, we do not hear enough on the aspect that I am really enthusiastic about, which is the fun—although we do not hear a lot about fun in education in general.

This debate is about how to get our schools and universities out of the spiral of decline that the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, talked about. It appears from government figures that there has been an improvement in ITT recruitment to modern and foreign language teaching. However, as the target was lower, and is still only 90% met, and as it comes against a background of very low levels of recruitment over previous years, there is still a great deal to do if we are to arrest the decline of modern language departments at university level.

If there is not a secure base of effective language teaching in key stages 4 and 5, we will continue to have this problem, and A-levels will continue to decline. Recently, a House of Commons committee reinforced the view that teaching is still insufficiently attractive in terms of burdensome workloads, and of course, there are pay level issues. This needs to be remedied. Given the number of modern languages teachers that we need, I ask my noble friend the Minister, as she has already been asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, if the Government will reconsider a visa waiver scheme for non-UK trainees and teachers in recruitment. This would go a long way towards improving our position.

Perhaps what we also need is a national strategy. I hesitate to suggest this, because it seems to be the answer to almost anything that comes before government—“Let’s have a national strategy”—but I do think that it would be worth while. Certainly, we must urgently consider visa sponsoring and the material that schools need to be able to do that.

Finally, I ask my noble friend the Minister to look again at the issue of functional language skills teaching and qualification raised in the Education for 11-16 Year Olds Committee of your Lordships’ House.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds)]

My Lords, may I draw to everyone’s attention the fact that the timing in this debate is very tight? Could everyone please either go below five minutes or stick to the five minutes’ advisory time? Otherwise, we will not have time for the Minister to respond in full.

[Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Baroness, Lady Coussins, on introducing this debate and also on her outstanding and continuing work on the importance of modern languages.

The well-known actor Larry Lamb, who is fronting the British Council’s new festival of languages this summer in London, recently said:

“English is the language of business but children and young people should understand the level of respect that comes when you attempt to speak the language of the people with whom you’re working”.


Mr Lamb criticised a 2004 decision by Charles Clarke, the then Education Secretary, to drop compulsory language learning from the age of 14. Mr Lamb also added, somewhat provocatively:

“I feel disappointed that the education system has allowed this to happen. I bet there aren’t many private schools where taking languages is a choice, particularly at the top end”.


It is true that the prospects for modern language learning are currently not good, but that is the responsibility of successive Governments and most certainly not the responsibility of Charles Clarke alone. Successive Governments have allowed this situation to develop.

GCSE entries in modern languages decreased from over 500,000 in 2004 to just over 330,000 in 2025. The proposed abolition of the EBacc does not help much, because languages will have to compete even more with other subjects when pupils are making choices. The DfE, over many years, has missed its targets for modern language trainee teachers. In 2025, only 42% of the target was reached.

A most shocking thing, which I had not realised, is that over half of all universities have ceased to offer modern language degrees altogether. Currently, only 48 do, compared to 108 in 2000. The consequence is obviously a strong decline in the number of qualified modern language teachers. As is always the case in education matters, without qualified and well-trained teachers, there is quite simply no education. My eye is upon the noble Baroness, Lady Blower.

Many years ago, in an earlier career, I set up a number of projects to teach French in primary schools, with tight and co-operative links to the appropriate secondary schools. We trained teachers and hired peripatetic staff and French assistants. Our strong in-service training included what became known locally, rather unfortunately, as “French weekends”. In this residential training, French was spoken throughout, French food was served and there were obviously quite a number of wine tastings. The whole scheme brought together primary and secondary teachers with the Alliance Française. It was a true languages pipeline, with stellar O-level and A-level results in languages as a consequence. This was one way of achieving that improvement.

More recently, a solution to the falling numbers of modern language teachers has been recruitment from overseas, as we have said. Precisely the issues involved with that approach are at the heart of this debate: 50% of trainees are recruited internationally; they get bursaries, but the cost of employing them and visa difficulties have presented other problems, not least that apparently, half the trainees go home when they cannot find a job here. Another stupid complication is that the duration of the graduate visa scheme has been reduced to 18 months, while the induction period for newly qualified teachers lasts for two years. That is not good co-ordination.

However, there are plenty of practical solutions, some of which will emerge from this debate. The idea that there should be a national languages strategy has already been mentioned. It is backed by the British Academy, the Arts and Humanities Research Council, the Association of School and College Leaders, the British Council and Universities UK, which is quite a line-up. Another practical idea would be for the DfE or local authorities to set up local regional conferences where heads and teachers could share solutions, such as helplines and guidance on the visa system. I feel compelled to say that that is what we used to do.

There is strong consensus worldwide that effective communication between nations is more valuable and relevant now than it has ever been. The DfE itself said:

“Learning a language empowers young people to engage with the world, think critically and understand new perspectives”.


That is true, so I hope the Minister takes careful note not only of the excellent evidence provided by this debate but of the realistic and practical solutions that have already been proposed, when we are nowhere near the end of the debate.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I am very sorry to intervene again but, if every noble Lord and noble Baroness takes an extra minute, we are not going to get through this debate in time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, it is conventional in this House to congratulate the sponsor of a debate, and I will certainly not miss that out on the present occasion because it is high time that the plight of modern language learning and training in the UK was drawn to public attention and remedied. But I will go further on this occasion by congratulating my noble friend Lady Coussins on the unrelenting work she has done through the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages to shine a light on what is, I suggest, an act of national self-harm.

Is there really a problem with modern language teaching and learning? Well, there is not much doubt about that. Others have already quoted figures, and others in this debate will quote figures, to demonstrate the scale of the crisis, but here are some of those produced on 16 December by the Higher Education Statistics Agency—HESA. From the academic year 2012-13 to the academic year 2023-24, the overall figures for modern languages dropped from 125,900 to 80,100; those for French from 9,700 to 3,700; and those for German and Scandinavian languages from 3,900 to 1,400. It is important to remember that where the drop in university places leads to closures, what are called “cold spots” occur at GCSE and A-level too.

Those figures should be a wake-up call to the Government and to Parliament. Other figures from the sector are equally dire, such as those for the Anglo-French programme for the exchange of teaching assistants in both directions for a year teaching in each other’s schools. It has just celebrated—if that is the right word—its 120th anniversary, which I attended. It was set up to mark the entente cordiale, but the figures are terrible. Some will question whether this really matters in a world where English has become—and I actually welcome this—the global lingua franca, although not, of course, the language of the majority of the population of the world. It is set to remain so for the rest of this century, and perhaps longer.

That is certainly a fact of life, and we are rightly proud of our language—its versatility, its flexibility, and the access it provides to much great literature. But is it in our interest to fly along on the coattails of the United States—which is what, in fact, we are doing—and to have less and less knowledge of, or access to, other great civilisations, many but not all by any means, in continental Europe? I would suggest not: not in business, not in trade, not in academic terms, not in the conduct of international relations, and not in the in-depth understanding of other societies.

If we are, over time, to remedy this situation, we need an overall multifaceted set of policies by government, by schools and by universities. Several recent Governments have aspired, and have announced their aspiration, to initiate such policies, but, frankly, they have then acted only in a half-hearted sort of way—often seriously underresourced, and often also with other government policies necessary for success contradicting university needs for visa access to fulfil their international student and other academic studies. It is surely time for a more systematic, better co-ordinated, better concerted effort. I do hope that the Minister, in replying to this debate, will commit the Government to undertaking such an effort.

Anyway, we have one element of such a programme already, which can be warmly welcomed: the decision by the UK, agreed by the EU, to rejoin the Erasmus+ programme in 2027, reversing the damage done when we intemperately pulled out of that programme after the Brexit vote, unlike plenty of other third countries which remain in the programme. However, look at the school visit programme: laid low by Brexit and Covid, it has still not recovered properly, despite the agreements reached between the Prime Minister and President Macron and the Prime Minister and Chancellor Merz to resume them on a bilateral basis. The restraints on collective visas for school visits to the UK make no sense whatever. Is there any evidence of illegal migration by that route? Perhaps the Minister can explain why it is taking so long to resume those school visit programmes.

The one thing we cannot afford to do as a nation that has for centuries thriven on international trade and investment, is to withdraw into a kind of monoglot ghetto, whose leading politicians complain about hearing nothing but foreign languages on public transport.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

Order. Can the noble Lord wind up, please? He is already a minute over. If everyone takes an extra minute, the Minister will not have any time to sum up at the end.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

We should be looking at modern languages, with both teaching and learning as a means of promoting our soft power and influence, not as something we could perfectly well do without.

Post-16 Education and Skills Strategy

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for recognising the range of reform necessary to tackle this enormously worrying problem of young people who are neither learning nor earning. In order to prevent that in the first place, as he identifies, we will have higher expectations on schools to ensure suitable destinations for young people. We will look at the ways in which we can ensure that every young person has a place in a college and is auto-enrolled if necessary. We will then, through, for example, the Chancellor’s announcement of a backstop youth guarantee work placement for young people on universal credit who have been out of work for 18 months, make sure that people no longer start their working life without the work or training that can lead them to succeed.

When it comes to short courses, this is part of our reform of the apprenticeship levy into a much more flexible growth and skills levy, which, alongside short courses, also introduces foundation apprenticeships. These will be a very important way in which young people can enter the workforce and will have an important impact on NEETs as well.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

I ask noble Lords to keep their questions short. We have enormous interest in this subject and we want to get through as many questions as we can.

[Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a visiting professor at King’s and chairman of FutureLearn. I welcome the Statement, particularly, like my noble friend Lord Willetts, the bold decision to index fees with inflation—it is absolutely the right thing to do after a decade of real-terms freezes. However, I regret the missed opportunity to fix some of the big problems with the lifelong learning entitlement and the decision to take away with the other hand what the Government have just given on the fees front. Can the Minister please confirm the scope of the proposed tax on international tuition fees? Does it include, for example, online provision and transnational education—that is, courses taken by students from British universities while they are studying in other countries? Given that the Government have acknowledged that they do not have a strong evidence base on elasticity of demand, would it not be a better idea to pause to rollout of this tax or, better still, shelve it altogether?

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Thursday 18th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by noting that, although there are a smaller number of noble Lords in the Chamber, the quality of the contributions has nevertheless been truly significant. I thank my noble friend Lord Layard for bringing this to the Chamber and for continuing to share his enormous expertise and passion in this area, ably supported by the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson. I emphasise that this Government absolutely understand the importance of apprenticeships and the scandal of reduced opportunities for young people and are fully engaged in discussions on how to address this and move forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, this group focuses on the thorny issue of complaints. The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough would introduce a new right of appeal for parents who have made a complaint that has not been upheld to a maintained school, academy or non- maintained special school.

At the risk of stating the obvious, most schools follow the law; they follow guidance and non-statutory guidance. I remember one teacher saying to me, “We live our lives by the bell. Of course we follow the rules”, but I accept the examples that my noble friend cited. We know that the volume of complaints is rising considerably, sadly assisted by tools such as ChatGPT and other large language models. As my noble friend Lady Spielman said on her amendment, to which I was pleased to add my name, a complaint can be made to the Department for Education, Ofsted and the TRA, as well as to the school itself. Most worryingly, the school is sometimes excluded and complaints are made to all the other agencies but not to the school.

I am grateful to the charity Parentkind for its research into complaints, which shows that the vast majority of parents are happy with their child’s school, but also that 38% of the 2,000 parents in the sample interviewed had filed a formal complaint in the last year. Head teachers report separately from the Parentkind research that, on average, they are dealing with five complaints a week.

As my noble friend Lord Jackson explained, his amendment would support parents who are not satisfied with the school’s response to a complaint and provide a different mechanism to enforce their legal duties. I find it troubling that this amendment is needed, particularly the second element, as there are significant safeguards to ensure that schools meet their legal duties. I would have hoped that the existing system, which allows a complaint to be referred to a panel chaired by an independent member, would be sufficient. However, I think the Committee will agree that my noble friend has raised some extremely worrying examples including—and this might be insulting to snails—about the pace of the response received from the department.

I turn to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Spielman. As she set out, it aims to simplify and streamline the complaints process. We are trying to address the current problems in the system whereby parents can make complaints to multiple places, which leads to confusion, frustration on the part of parents, delays and extra work and stress for school leaders. I know that is something that the Secretary of State is very alive to and has promised to come back with ideas on in the schools White Paper, which is coming very soon, I think—but perhaps I put the “very” in.

Our amendment would ensure that complaints are dealt with by only one party at a time, and that it is the most appropriate one. The Minister will be aware of cases where tremendous pressure is placed on the leadership of schools, including on some occasions when false and vindictive allegations are made. I remember visiting a school where a parent had alleged that over half of the members of staff had behaved inappropriately towards their child. Each complaint was made to multiple organisations and had to be dealt with individually, which took a huge toll on school leaders and their colleagues. Indeed, Paul Whiteman, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, has said:

“We are hearing more often from school leaders who have seen a significant increase in complaints, including a big rise in those that are clearly vexatious or baseless. This can harm their wellbeing, and cause unnecessary stress and workload”.


He also agrees that:

“Too often complaints are escalated unnecessarily, including sometimes to multiple agencies at the same time”.


I hope that I am safe in saying that I do not think that either my noble friend or I are wedded to the particular approach that we have in our amendment, but we are wedded to supporting schools and parents so that complaints can be dealt with swiftly and clearly, with a minimum of stress and expense, human or financial, to all involved. I look forward to hearing from the Minister the Government’s plans in this area.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions and for raising this very important area around parental complaints and appeals and the introduction of a central school complaints system. The Government completely understand the concern on this matter. As I shall go on to mention, the increase in the number of complaints is quite staggering, when you see the statistics laid out.

Amendments 485, 487 and 488, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, would allow parents and carers of children in maintained schools, independent schools, including academies, and non-maintained special schools to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. Amendment 489, also tabled by the noble Lord, would allow for regulations to amend secondary legislation on the rules and procedures of the First-tier Tribunal. I note the detailed examples that the noble Lord highlighted to us.

Amendment 502YM, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, would introduce a central complaints system to handle all school-related complaints in England, and for these complaints to be held in a central database accessible to the Department for Education and Ofsted. I hope we have made it very clear throughout the passage of the Bill, and I repeat it, that the Government’s mission is to break down barriers to opportunity by driving high and rising standards, so that all children are supported to achieve and thrive. This area fits into the discussion of these amendments.

When parents and carers believe schools are not delivering the standards expected of them, they of course have the right to raise complaints with schools—that is of the utmost importance. All schools are required to have a complaints policy in place that is promoted and effectively implemented. However, we believe that the introduction of an additional level of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal would create increased burden on a school system that is already under enormous pressure, as we have heard, from the increasing number of parent and carer complaints.

Importantly, the existing system already allows for the escalation of complaints where parents and carers believe complaints have not been handled compliantly or a school has not adhered to education law. When non-compliance is identified, the Secretary of State for Education has powers to intervene in a way that is proportionate and necessary to bring resolution to the parent’s or carer’s complaint.

We have accepted and acknowledged the issues and concerns being raised, by both schools and parents and carers, about the current school complaints system, both the pressure it places on schools—we have heard some good examples of that—and the frustration it can cause for parents and carers. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, highlighted, the increase in parent and carer complaints is a growing concern across the sector. That is why we are working through the Improving Education Together group, bringing together colleagues from across the sector to improve the school complaints system. Our aim is to reduce the burden on schools and leaders, while also maintaining parents’ rights to raise concerns, including by exploring ways to reduce unnecessary duplication. We want to create a better and clearer system for parents and to improve the relationship between schools and families.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, highlighted the work that Parentkind has done in this space. I am very pleased to inform the Chamber that the Secretary of State went to the launch of its latest publication on this subject on Tuesday—when, ironically, we were in the Chamber. That was a very important step forward. She set out that we are resetting relationships between schools and parents, so that trust levels are high and any issues are resolved informally before becoming complaints.

The other pressure that I need to draw attention to, and why we are very concerned about introducing additional burdens, is from SEND-related tribunals. The number of appeals has risen by over 40% in the past year alone. I think that it is well known that we are working with the Ministry of Justice to bring more capacity into that system. That will be addressed in the SEND reform review that will be published later in the autumn.

The noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, raises an important point about AI. I had not thought of it in that way, but of course people are finding new applications all the time, just putting their few words into ChatGPT or whatever and coming out with a whole document built on that. I want to reassure her that the department is fully aware of this situation and is looking at ways to support schools in this space, including revision of the department’s guidance to schools on this very important matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Can the noble Baroness say now, or write to me and put the letter in the Library, clarifying whether, in relation to simplification of the complaints system, which obviously the Secretary of State has said she would like to do and which is at the heart of the amendment in my name and in that of my noble friend Lady Spielman, that requires a change in primary legislation or whether it can be done in secondary legislation? If it requires primary legislation, I am sure that colleagues in the department would be able to craft some kind of commencement clause—I am not sure quite what sort of clause it would be—that would allow that to happen without us having to wait several years for more legislation.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises a very important point, and these will all be matters that are being considered as the Secretary of State takes this important work forward. I can get a written note and put it in the Library to outline the way forward and where we are at this moment.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her well thought through and considered response. It ranged wider than I expected, but just for the avoidance of doubt, of course I deprecate any unreasonable or vexatious complaints against teachers from parents that might veer into anti-social behaviour of the type she mentioned in terms of WhatsApp groups. I am happy to put that on record.

This has been a very thoughtful and important debate and I am grateful to noble Lords who took part, not least the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and my noble friend Lady Spielman, who both brought great expertise and experience to the debate—the noble Lord from his time on Liverpool City Council and my noble friend from her leadership of Ofsted.

At its heart, this debate has revolved around a single clear question: do we believe that the laws passed in Parliament should be enforceable in schools? People are worried about a litigation culture, yet the evidence demonstrates that the current system of bureaucratic brick walls and institutional inertia is the true source of conflict and frustration. We have heard concerns about costs, but I ask again, what is the price of the status quo? What is the cost of a department that fails in its duty, and of parental trust in schools evaporating?

This accountability vacuum does not remain empty for long: it is filled by an entire ecosystem of unaccountable third-party advisers and activists. This is not, I suggest, a failure of individual teachers but a systemic failure. In the absence of clear enforcement, the law becomes muted and professionals are left rudderless. Into this void step commercial subscription services. I will give one final example in this debate. The Key is an organisation ironically first established by the Department for Education before it was privatised. When the previous Government consulted on draft guidelines for schools on gender-questioning children, The Key actively counselled schools that it would be unlawful to follow that guidance.

The accountability these amendments would introduce is not just for schools; it is for the entire advisory industry, which is funded by stretched school budgets. When the advice of these organisations is tested before a tribunal and found wanting, schools will quite rightly cease to pay for it. The market for bad advice will therefore, for the first time, face a correction.

These amendments are not a radical proposal. They do not seek to create conflict: they seek to provide a clear, fair and independent forum for its resolution. They would not undermine professional judgment, but they do subordinate it to the rule of law, which is as it should be. They give parents a voice and give the law teeth.

In conclusion, the choice is simple. We can endure the current inertia, condemning parents to a system that does not work, or we could take a meaningful step to restore accountability, uphold the will of Parliament and ensure that, when a parent has a legitimate concern that a school is breaking the law, they have somewhere to go. I believe we must choose the latter. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment but will consider returning to it at a later date.

--- Later in debate ---

I also echo the sentiments of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, in acknowledging the care, the thought, the intellectual firepower and a few hours of work that have gone into scrutinising the Bill from across the House. I also want to thank personally a number of external experts who have certainly shared their insights with me and have taken great care and trouble to support us on a number of our amendments. We all do this because we care about the children whom the Bill seeks to support. We may not agree, but we all care.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

Before I start summing up, I just have a comment to make: if loosening ties is good enough for instructions in this Chamber, maybe schools should consider it. I am sorry; we are getting to the last group of amendments here.

These are all exceptionally important amendments that we need to consider. It is a rather strange grouping but there is a theme running through them. I will turn to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, first because his amendment led the group. The whole thrust of this is that it would require schools to remain open to all pupils during civil emergencies unless the other place decided otherwise. I stress that every emergency is different and unpredictable; that is the nature of the beast that we are talking about. We all learned the lesson—some of us were more involved than others—that planning is best when it is agile and takes a whole-system approach, and is responsive to the emergency faced. For example, I will never forget the chilling moment when I got a call from our director of education to say that a teacher had been murdered in one of our schools, all of the emotions that brought in, and the effect on all the children in the school and the staff, and the huge response required at the time.

I am acutely conscious of the impacts that closing schools has on children, and protecting children and young people in emergencies will always be a priority for the Government. I commend those school leaders who kept schools open during the pandemic—albeit for limited numbers of pupils, but the vast majority of schools were open during that time and we should remember that. They did extraordinary work to keep those settings open. They received very strong local support in, I have to say, often a very conflicting and chaotic environment where directives were not clear; there was an enormous amount of confusion during that whole period.

It would not be appropriate here to pre-empt the findings of the Covid inquiry into the decisions made by the previous Government. We must let the inquiry go into a real level of detail. It is of course timely that the children’s module is starting the week after next. We will all watch the evidence that is gathered through that process with great care and great insight. However, I want to raise the issue that, for those of us who had to deal with the directives, there was a question: why were zoos, theme parks and pubs opened before schools? That is the sort of question that we need to try to get an understanding of.

School leaders already manage complex legal duties. No one would close a school lightly. The Government publish guidance to help settings prepare and tailor their approach for different emergencies. For health emergencies, non-statutory guidance backed by public health advice generally works well, and the current framework enables this without new legislation. DfE would work with a range of experts if faced with such decisions at scale again, and we will consider the role that the Children’s Commissioner plays. I would be interested in hearing the views of the Children’s Commissioner at this present moment on whether her office actually has the resource to take on the responsibilities being suggested in the amendment.

Something that might be of interest is that Exercise Pegasus, the UK’s largest-ever pandemic preparedness simulation, started this week. It is a vital step in ensuring that our systems, people and plans are ready for the next pandemic, whenever it may come. DfE officials are participating fully in it, as is Minister Gould in the other place. A Written Ministerial Statement on Pegasus came out earlier in the week, and I recommend that we all look at the experience that has been gathered through that process. Additionally, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is looking carefully at legislation around future public health emergencies, drawing on those lessons and ensuring that we are never again in the position of unpreparedness that we faced in March 2020.

Amendment 502P, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, would require new schools to be built to deliver net zero carbon in operation and to be resilient to climate change, and would require action plans to be developed for all existing schools to reach net zero and be adapted to be resilient to the impacts of climate change. I confirm that the Department for Education already requires all centrally funded school building projects to be net-zero carbon in operation. New schools delivered by the department are designed to be climate resilient to a 2 degree rise in average global temperatures, as has been stated, and future-proofed for a rise of 4 degrees centigrade. They need to incorporate sustainable drainage systems and deliver a greening factor of at least 35% to promote biodiversity, and I confirm that this is ongoing.

The DfE sustainability strategy introduced an expectation for all schools to develop a climate adaptation plan, supported by a network of climate ambassadors who, through nine regional hubs, provide free expertise and support to nursery schools and colleges to develop and deliver impactful climate action plans. The DfE has partnered with Great British Energy to support schools in decarbonising their buildings through the installation of solar power and other energy-efficiency measures, such as installing LED lighting.

On the three questions posed by the noble Baroness, I think everyone knows that taking exams at the hottest time of year can be extraordinarily difficult. It is not always extremely hot at that time of year—as we all know, our climate is unpredictable at this time—but that is under consideration. I will have to get back to her on the other questions that she raised around data and information gathering.

Amendment 502YA is a very thoughtful amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who speaks with enormous experience and gave very appropriate examples. I think the way we feel about this is that teaching about emergencies has to be age appropriate. We must work sensitively to ensure that it extends to not overstating risks and helping pupils contextualise what they learn, without causing alarm. That is the very delicate balance we have to tread on this. Of course, there are particularly obvious safety measures we can help to get across, as the noble Baroness outlined. But there are areas in which we need to rely on schools. They are exceptionally well placed to know how to plan for emergencies and how to talk to pupils appropriately. There is guidance available to them, including from the department.

In addition, the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025, commonly known as Martyn’s law, received Royal Assent this year, as we have heard. It will require certain premises, including educational settings, to prepare for potential events and be ready to keep people safe in the event of an attack. As such, we think it would be confusing and unnecessary to accept this amendment while Martyn’s law is being introduced within the next 24 months.

Amendment 502YB was proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and states that we need an initial 12-month and then biennial review of the level of preparedness of grant maintained schools and other schools for increasing extremes of climate, particularly high temperatures. Of course, in Australia wearing hats is compulsory, and I think kids having suncream is compulsory as well. Other parts of the world have moved ahead of us, and we need to learn from other experiences. We understand the concern expressed in this amendment, but we have to be very careful about adding to the burden of the sector around collecting the data she suggests and the review. I think we need to be very sensitive to this and make sure everything is done proportionately, while making sure children and young people are safe.

The considerations set out in the amendment should be included in settings’ climate action plans, to be dealt with at a local level. However, for the preparedness of buildings and grounds, we will potentially develop new methods of data collection in the future to help us understand the preparedness of school settings for managing climate change emergencies.

I do not think I need to say an enormous amount more about uniform provision. We issued guidance to support schools in developing and implementing uniform policies which states that schools should take a sensible approach to allow for exceptions to be made during extreme weather.

On the suitability of transport provision, we know some schools provide transport—minibuses, for example. We do not provide guidance or collect information on this transport. Health and safety on educational visits guidance sets out our advice on considerations necessary to plan, organise and risk assess educational visits.

For the level of emergency planning to protect pupil health and well-being, including regulations and rules about maximum temperatures in classrooms, the workplace regulations apply to schools and cover temperatures in indoor workplaces. This is supported by other legislation which requires schools to maintain their premises to ensure the health and safety and welfare of pupils. It is for individual schools to have policies in place for emergency response and safeguarding.

Finally, Amendment 502YK, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, looks at the rather vexed issue of ventilation and air cleaning in schools and reducing the transmission of respiratory diseases as well as other measures to reduce transmission of other diseases with annual reporting on progress. I agree that good ventilation is vitally important. The department already publishes guidance on ventilation which is consistent with expert advice given by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, SAGE, during the Covid-19 pandemic on ventilation requirements to reduce the spread of Covid-19 and by extension other airborne infections. I am sure all noble Lords will remember those shots of airborne particles circulating around a room without ventilation and the difference that opening windows and other factors made.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition believe that we do, of course, need to pay careful attention to the barriers that prevent children from low-income backgrounds, young carers and others from attaining higher grades and better results in school. Ensuring that every child has a fair and equal chance is paramount, and it is entirely right that we should look for ways to mitigate these barriers wherever they arise. That may well be achieved in different ways —for some children, through home schooling, and for others, through specialist academies, as we have already argued on other clauses of the Bill.

It is also important that we look beyond structure and address the socioeconomic reasons that often lie behind underperformance. Disadvantage, low prior attainment and the additional burdens carried by some young people all need to be recognised. We hope the Minister will use this opportunity to set out clearly how the Government are working to level the playing field, ensuring that no group of pupils, regardless of background, is either favoured or disadvantaged and that even well-intentioned measures do not lead to any kind of positive discrimination. The principles of fairness and opportunity for all must remain central.

For that reason, while we would have stopped short of saying that a statutory national tutoring guarantee is the best or only approach, we welcome the spirit of Amendment 460, and we look forward to hearing how the Government intend to address the issues it highlights.

On Amendment 482, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for raising this important issue. The children of parents who are in in prison are too often a hidden group, and yet they face particular challenges that can significantly affect their educational attainment and life chances.

We have had the opportunity to research the work that has been done by the charity Children Heard and Seen. That research suggests that schools were aware of just 30,000 children with a parent in prison, whereas the Ministry of Justice’s data estimates that the number of children with a parent in prison in England and Wales is more like 192,000.

This amendment rightly shines a light on these children’s needs and on our responsibility to ensure that they are not overlooked. We would be grateful if the Minister took this opportunity to set out what steps the Government are taking to address the barriers faced specifically by these children and whether they recognise them as a group that requires dedicated support and special help, in addition to helping schools identify those affected children who would indeed benefit from additional or tailored interventions in their place of learning. It is only by identifying and acknowledging such groups, not just children with parents in prison, that we can make sure that no child is left behind, whatever the circumstances of their family life.

Finally, we support the principle that lies behind Amendment 490. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for their tireless work in highlighting these challenges that are faced by children with special educational needs and disabilities. Their determination to improve outcomes for this group makes a huge difference, and we hope the Minister will recognise the strength of feeling across your Lordships’ Committee on this matter.

That said, we have reservations as to whether a royal commission is the best medium to close the attainment gap for people with special education needs and disabilities. Commissions can be lengthy and expensive, and sometimes produce recommendations that are overtaken by events before the findings themselves can be implemented.

Our goal is to ensure that we do everything we can to enable children with special educational needs to leave school with the skills, independence and confidence that will allow them to flourish and seize every opportunity available to them in the outside world. That requires schools and educational delivery to be formulated in ways that are genuinely tailored to children’s needs, not necessarily to meet a single uniform benchmark. For that reason, although we absolutely support the intent, allow me to suggest that another approach may be from the bottom up, focused on practice and provision on the ground and in the corridors, rather than launching a royal commission.

None the less, the underlying issue is of the greatest importance, and we hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to set out how the Government are addressing the attainment gap which has been made clear by noble Lords across your Lordships’ House, between those with special educational needs and those without, and to set out what more can be done to make sure that every child is given the best chance to succeed.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed on this important group of amendments. First of all, it is not going to be possible to give the list that everyone has specifically asked for, but I want to start by making it absolutely clear that raising attainment for all children with inclusivity in mind and recognising the gaps wherever they occur is absolutely a top priority for the Government. This is such a complex area of work, as has been eloquently highlighted by the contributions that we have had on the three amendments.

On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, he reminded us of the place we were in during those very dark days of Covid, and of the response to try to recognise that so many vulnerable young people in particular were being left behind as a result of their absence from the school system. I fully appreciate his concern and the concerns expressed by others, and particularly his interest in this and his understanding from his background of how this works locally. But I emphasise that it was a programme that was time limited for obvious reasons and has served its place.

I am very conscious of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Gove, about how we target the resource we have. One of the best resources we have is our schools and those involved in the system, and I believe it is much better to go to those schools and let them identify the best way forward. It could be that a tutoring programme has worked brilliantly for them specifically, but we know that this is not the case all over. We should have confidence in those schools to determine the best way that they can reach young people who really need that additional support.

As I say, schools can choose to continue to provide tutoring through the use of funds such as pupil premium, for example, and to support the disadvantaged pupils identified in this amendment. Also, the Department for Education has published evaluations of the National Tutoring Programme; therefore we do not believe that it would be good value to have further reporting on it.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Weir, for his comments. I am very interested in the work that he highlighted. If he could send me a link to the report that he mentioned, I would be grateful. It is of course critical that we listen to experience from our devolved regions and make sure we learn from all the experience that we have. As has been said, gathering information from across so many comments is one part of the issue. How we analyse that information and make it worthwhile and useful is another serious part.

My response to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, is that we do not believe that it is necessary to set out the complete requirements and framework in statute. We have confidence in schools to take this forward.

Moving on to Amendment 482, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for stepping in and raising this whole important area. I of course recognise the concerns that have been expressed across the House. I am very grateful to her for raising such an important issue. Having a parent in prison can have a lasting detrimental effect on children’s life chances, including increasing their risk of low educational attainment, as we have heard. I appreciate that a supportive school environment can help to act as a buffer against these risks, and teachers can help children to navigate a challenging time and aspire towards further education.

The Government have committed to identifying and supporting all children affected by parental imprisonment. This is not a simple or straightforward task. It is extremely difficult. We have to be aware of the gaps in our knowledge and perhaps try to understand why we have some of those gaps. We are considering how to support this cohort as part of the Government’s opportunity mission. Obviously, the theme running through all this is about making sure that educational attainment is at the centre, but there are many other factors that we need to bring in relating to the well-being of children and young people, and how that can have an impact.

While the request is welcome, it would risk duplicating efforts that are already being made to identify this cohort sensitively, ensuring that they are offered appropriate support. As the noble Lord, Lord Gove, said, the Ministry of Justice is stepping up in this space. The Department for Education is working closely with the Ministry of Justice to ensure that all children affected by parental imprisonment, including those not of compulsory school age, are recognised and receive the support they need to achieve and thrive alongside their peers.

I say that this is sensitive because we cannot assume that all children whose parents are in prison have the same experience. Indeed, the difference in experience between siblings can be stark. It is a complex area. Some children who have a parent in custody might never have lived with that parent. We must be careful not to make assumptions about their experience. Our approach is looking at all children, recognising that their specific experiences can be very different indeed. Sensitivity is paramount in this area.

I turn to Amendment 490, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and thank him again for the way in which he expresses his concern around these issues. I extend those sentiments to everyone who has contributed to this area.

Again, I have to agree that establishing a royal commission on this subject may not be the way forward. As a Government, we have recognised that the whole area around special educational needs needs serious attention. Just to pick up on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, recognising the complexity of all this is why we are looking at that review. I know that we will go on in the next group of amendments after the dinner break to look into some of these issues in more detail, so I do not want to cover too much of the ground that will be raised then.