Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for his tour de force. One thing he did not say was that, as soon as children, particularly children from low-income families, go into school, the gap in their learning narrows as a result of child poverty. Growing up in poverty is strongly linked to lower educational outcomes, worse health and reduced lifetime earnings. As of 2022-23, 4.3 million children, 29%, in the UK lived in relative poverty. Rates are higher for single-parent and minority-ethnic families. An estimated £500 million in unpaid child maintenance exists, and many lone parents do not receive the money that is due to them. The Child Poverty Act 2010 led to measurable progress until—and this is crucial—the targets were removed in 2016. During that period, child poverty fell from 28% to 20%.

We could all get involved in talking about the effects of child poverty, but the amendment is about saying, “We need to have targets”, and that is absolutely right. You cannot go on a journey unless you know what you want to achieve and measure as you go along. I will repeat the evidence to support that: the Child Poverty Act 2010 had targets, and it led to improvements. As soon as those targets were removed, child poverty fell from 28% to 20%. What does that tell us? Does that tell us targets are right or that they are not the best way of moving forward? I do not know, but my common sense tells me that you need to have targets to understand where you are going. I do not understand what I am saying, to be quite honest, because I thought the targets were—

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I have not spoken on the Bill, but I have been present for quite a lot of the debates. I am slightly confused by the what the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, and I wonder whether he meant to phrase it like that. He said that when the targets were removed, child poverty fell from 28% to 20%. Does he mean it the other way round—that it rose, rather than fell? I just wondered whether he might be able to clarify that.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I have to be careful here with what I say. When are you are in Committee, you are dealing with dozens of amendments, and you get handed briefs to do that. Initially, I read that to be the way the noble Baroness said it. But when I read it again, I thought, “This does not make sense. Could it be the other way round?” I slightly inwardly panicked and thought, “I am not going to mislead the Committee and say something that is not correct”. I am going to put that down and say that my common sense tells me that if you are doing something, you need to know where you are going on that journey. You need to be able to understand that a target is set and ask, “Have I reached that target or not?” The best example of that is—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, can I inject one further thought that she might agree with? While the sentiments adduced in this debate are entirely right, and the concern is absolutely an important concern, does she agree that, in that discussion of centrally imposed targets versus the removal of targets, looking at the particular circumstances is profoundly important? The targets were removed after what those of us who do financial services call the global financial crash, when GDP declined considerably—in fact, we are still seeing the effects of what happened in 2008—but, because child poverty is relative, a decline in GDP has a material impact on whether child poverty goes up or down. I wonder whether that should be part of the consideration of where the targets fit. My own view is that some targets are important, but it is more important to get GDP going, which I think is the Government’s intent in this case, so relative child poverty of itself becomes less of a problem.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes a very helpful point, and I absolutely agree with it.

Education (Assemblies) Bill [HL]

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 7th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, but I emphasise that I am speaking in a personal capacity today. I was not listed for this debate because I could not get my name on the list in time, but I have listened with great interest.

I will make only three points. One is that the widening of what is covered in assemblies is attractive on the face of it, but it should be seen alongside the consequential narrowing of the other attributes of the current system, reducing the space to share values within the majority Judeo-Christian tradition and the ability to hold vibrant discussions about minority relations. I speak as a secular Muslim, and I know that those discussions are undertaken very well in the current curriculum, as well as those of other religious values.

My second point is on contested arguments, not least on social media, and disinformation in news, where young people are easily directed to misinformation. The current curriculum offers a safe space for some of these discussions. It is a rare opportunity for people to have some direction on what can be covered, but it still allows for the important value-driven conversations that are not available elsewhere to be imparted for young people to think about. So it is not clear to me how the widening of this space will not increase the ability for greater contestation. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has just given several examples that I agree are important, but that are easily covered in other curricula. For example, she mentioned the environment, which is well covered in geography.

So, on balance, as a supporter of both Humanists UK and the National Secular Society, I say to the House that two things possibly flow here. One is the danger of making these quite long-term changes in a Private Member’s Bill. The other is that we are well served. Let us have the analysis of which schools are not currently sufficiently wide in their teachings in these assemblies, and come back with more deliberate and considered legislation to see how we may improve that situation.

Higher Education Regulatory Approach

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is the national human rights institution for Great Britain. Another interest is that we are an intervener on the proposed judicial review. It would not be wise for me to say much on the details of this Statement, but I put on record two things for the House. First, the Minister will know that the public sector equality duty is a fundamental part of the proposed litigation in this area, as well as the Government having a responsibility to have due regard to it. We are the regulator in that regard. I wrote to the Minister on 6 December, seeking an urgent meeting. The Statement says that a wide range of providers were consulted, but we were not, which is why I wrote to her. I also put on record—

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

Forgive me; I will address a point directly to the Minister. I am grateful that we are meeting next week, but we should have been consulted as part of that consultation. I say to the Government Whip that the clerks upstairs have told me that I need to declare these cumbersome interests every time I speak. I do not think it would be fair to the House for me not to declare them and make my points.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I appreciate those clarifications, but I remind your Lordships’ House that this is questions on a Statement, not additional statements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I think I have made the position with respect to student unions pretty clear. In my discussions with vice-chancellors, they recognise their responsibility under the legislation to work with student unions to make sure that the type of intimidation that the noble Lord and others have talked about does not happen. Once again, we have found a pragmatic approach to ensuring progress on this issue, and I think the balance is right.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, first, the Minister indicated to the House that she would be publishing guidance or regulations fairly shortly, so will this be available before the newer deadline for judicial review, which I think is July 2025? Secondly, I think I understood her to say that the reason she did not engage with the Equality and Human Rights Commission was that we were an intervener in the JR. I would like to put on record for the House that the decision to intervene happened only around 10 December. There was a period between July, when the Act was paused, and 10 December or thereabouts, when we would have been delighted to engage with her on the profound points of the public sector equality duty, as well as that of Article 10 on the right to freedom of expression.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

What I said was that we would bring forward a policy paper to outline how we were going to put in place the decisions that we have made on this. I am sorry if the noble Baroness thinks that there has not been sufficient engagement with her. All I can say is that there has been very widespread engagement with a whole range of stakeholders —probably a majority of whom supported the Act and quite a few of whom supported the totality of the Act, alongside those who actually would have preferred us to have completely repealed it. I hope and believe that what we have done is to appropriately listen and to find a responsible way through.

Education (Values of British Citizenship) Bill [HL]

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 18th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, but I make it clear that I am speaking in a personal capacity. This is my first opportunity to interact with the Minister, whom I warmly welcome to her important role; I look forward to future engagements.

I have huge respect for the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, so I find myself in an unusual position of opposition to this Bill. I hope to explain why something as nebulous as values are not capable of codification, especially as they change over time, as they should. This Bill might be better seen as describing a set of British rules or as a political Highway Code for the basic rules of any liberal democracy, not just those of Britain. For a liberal democracy to function well, it needs more than these widely agreed political rules; it needs a high degree of trust and fellow feeling between citizens.

In turn, that requires a shared language, some degree of shared norms and even a broadly shared way of life, albeit with different streams all flowing into the mainstream. That has to grow organically; it cannot be imposed in the form of some programme of British values. One of the central paradoxes of liberal societies is that, although they need a high degree of common norms or values to function well, the doctrine of liberal pluralism insists that individuals should be able, as long as they respect that political Highway Code, to pursue radically different ideas of the good life. Atheists and pious believers of many kinds, egalitarians and libertarians, moralists and libertines; all must be accommodated in liberal societies. That means that the attempt to codify a workable set of British values, which is more than the political Highway Code, is a project that is inimical to liberalism.

Another factor against the Bill is its practical workability. It is very brief—too brief to accommodate a workable set of definitions. These are high-level and worthy sentiments, but who is to interpret the guidance? Is it the Department for Education, the regulator Ofqual or some other public authorities that are currently unnamed? That guidance will not be subject to the rigorous scrutiny that we might see on primary legislation. Only three of these values are defined, yet it can be argued that even the others are contested. The rule of law is seen sometimes as the rule by law: an adherence to the rules, rather than the broader understanding of equality under the law. For example, freedom is already part of our law, with an active regulator in the EHRC as the national human rights institution in England and Wales. What is more, tribunals and our higher courts regularly interpret and clarify these norms. How long would it be before whatever guidance produced was out of date?

I hope to elaborate on these thoughts as we go forward to Committee. Nevertheless, I appreciate this positive attempt to make our young people think more carefully and learn about the glue that binds us together.