King’s Speech

Baroness Garden of Frognal Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate all the maiden speakers on excellent contributions and particularly welcome my two new colleagues, the noble Baroness, Lady Leaman, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon, who are both taking a well-earned break. We are delighted to have them join us and we look forward to working with them.

I know the convention is not to repeat a point made earlier in the debate, but as number 48 it is quite difficult to find totally new things to say. However, I will concentrate on education within the many subjects of today’s debate. I thought I was going to say something new in talking about modern languages—and blow me, the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, has just talked about modern languages.

I am a former modern linguist, and how pleased I am to see that we seem to be rejoining Erasmus, a brilliant programme for encouraging young people to learn languages and experience life in other countries. Leaving it was one of the very many losses from Brexit, but Erasmus+ gives hope that the Government will be able to support this valuable scheme. Will they also introduce group passports and find other ways of enabling disadvantaged youngsters to afford life-affirming experiences? If we wish to be an internationally minded country, we need to be able to speak other languages. It is no good just speaking English loudly. It honestly does not get you anywhere.

It is a matter of shame that numbers of GCSE and A-level entries are dropping, leading to some universities having to close language departments through lack of applicants. A knock-on effect of this, of course, is fewer language teachers. Starting languages in primary schools enables children to learn so much more enthusiastically. What support are the Government giving to ensure that there are language teachers to enthuse and inspire the young?

Just as languages need a boost in our education system, so do life skills and practical skills. We should be ashamed that a million young people are not in education, employment or training; many of them will have been turned off learning by the largely academic curriculum so beloved by the previous Government. Yet the country is short of skilled people in engineering, construction, hospitality and crafts. Schools need to offer music, as we have heard already, and art, drama, sport and dance, if we are to maintain this country’s reputation for creativity. The creative industries are major assets for the country in their earning power and their power to make people feel good about themselves. We need to encourage the next generation to follow Tom Stoppard, Andrew Lloyd Webber and Lucian Freud. Well, perhaps not Lucian Freud; perhaps Tracey Emin instead.

This Government have made some good decisions in addressing the curriculum to give a focus on skills for life, moving away from the facts leading to university which are so highly prized, but not relevant for many learners. Can the Minister say when we will see a curriculum to cater for all young people which will prepare them for life, enthuse them about learning and help them get jobs the country needs, and which will give them self-respect and the satisfaction of work?

Please will the Government also review their draconian treatment of independent schools? Some of the smaller, more specialist schools dealing with special needs, music and dance are struggling with the imposition of VAT and taxes, which cannot be passed on to embattled parents. Not all parents at private schools are wealthy; some are just struggling with their children, who need a particular environment. We need to encourage talented and disadvantaged youngsters. Can the Minister say if the Government will review the very broad brush they used to extract money from independent schools? I look forward to the other speakers and to the Minister’s reply.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Baroness Garden of Frognal Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 9th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

Amendments 6 and 7, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Collins, seek to test the inclusion of education in the Bill.

No doubt the Minister will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to repeat all the arguments that I made on health, but the concerns about compatibility with international law and the protection of human rights are just as pronounced in respect of the education sector. The Government need to justify why education is included in this skeleton Bill.

Under international law, when fundamental rights such as the right to withdraw labour are at stake, it is not sufficient to impose minimum service levels simply because strikes are disruptive, however inconvenient they may be; nor can the Government seek to justify curtailing the right of education workers to withdraw their labour on life and limb grounds.

I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why the Government’s mind has changed so radically in respect of the education sector from the view set out in their human rights memorandum attached to the transport strikes Bill. It said:

“In the education sector, there are various statutory duties on schools (and in particular head teachers or governing bodies) regarding the organisation, management, and control of a school, safeguarding and supervision of children (both on and off site) and health and safety duties regarding pupils which will impact on contingency arrangements needed in the event of strike action. For example, DfE Guidance for school leaders, governing bodies and employers handling strike action in schools provides statutory guidance on using volunteers to cover striking teachers and outlines how schools are often organised into ‘family groups’ enabling them to pool staff to ensure minimum services are delivered, and thus minimising the impact on children … The large number of employers in the education sector would also likely make minimum service arrangements difficult and very burdensome to implement.”


That is what the Government’s own advice said.

Yet again, the Government stand accused of attempting to distract from the causes of the dispute by attacking the fundamental rights of staff. Even using the most conservative IFS figures, between 2010 and 2022 average teacher salaries were cut in real terms by at least 11%. That has led to a recruitment and retention crisis and burnout among those who remain. The public get that the root cause of this dispute needs to be tackled. Polls show that a majority of those who express a view support teachers taking strike action, and anybody who has tuned into Mumsnet will have seen there is significant support for teachers there, too. Yet again, it is regrettable that the Government have failed to launch a consultation so that the views of the public and those most affected can be taken into account by both Houses of Parliament. We also really do need an adequate account from the Minister of how these proposals will work when education is a devolved matter and the consent of the devolved nations is withheld.

I also want to highlight the very real impact of what will happen if the Government persist with this Bill and with attacking teachers and their unions. The consequences for education services could be far-reaching. As I have argued before, suppressing strikes will not deter workers who feel they have a just cause. We know that the current strikes have been prompted by years of real pay cuts and the devastating impact and consequences of recruitment and retention issues. Unless the root causes of the strikes are addressed, if this Bill becomes law, we will simply see an upsurge in other forms of action. Just to give noble Lords an example of how real that is: using ONS data, the TUC calculated that the Government benefited to the tune of £8.6 billion from unpaid overtime by public sector staff last year, with an average of over 8 million hours of unpaid overtime each week.

As we saw in the recent WhatsApp leak, teachers’ work ethic may be described by some Ministers—or former Ministers—in a contemptuous fashion. But it is worth remembering that in that unpaid overtime league, teachers are near the top. Contrary to the view expressed by the then Education Secretary that teachers do not want to work, our schools only survive because staff put in hours and hours of unpaid overtime each and every week. Imagine what would happen if that good will was withdrawn with, for example, a work to rule.

I see no evidence in the Government’s red-rated impact assessment that any of this has been addressed in any serious fashion. There is a very real cost to getting this wrong—all the more reason why this Bill should be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment 6 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 7 by reason of pre-emption.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I was hoping that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, would leave me something to say, and I think there is a small window of opportunity. The Minister will be pleased to know that it is a small window, as I note he is on his seventh Haribo and may need further sustenance if we go on much longer. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for coming and speaking to this. It is very good to have the portfolio holders to address this, and I really appreciate that.

In the to and fro on Amendment 2, we began to nail what the Government mean by “education services”. The Minister said that it is more than just up to 16 but she did not go further. We are still not clear whether it covers further education and higher education, so Amendment 7 is a useful starting point in trying to set out in some detail what education services the Government have in mind. There are others—cleaning and janitorial services, for example—that are not included in that but are crucial to the safe running of a school. Anything that the Minister can say about what the Government feel is within the scope of the Bill would be helpful.

I am going to focus on schools because that appears to be where the Government are focused at the moment, but I am happy to be guided in other directions by the Minister. As the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, said, there was strike action in schools by members of the National Education Union in February and further action is planned, apparently, with strike action from the National Association of Head Teachers taking place in Wales; in Scotland, the Educational Institute of Scotland and two other unions are also planning future walkouts. So this is a serious issue.

We should be aware that there are a number of wide potential implications when there is a teachers’ strike. There are issues around child safety, parental inconvenience and the economic aspect for parents, who may then need to arrange childcare. Of course, there are also the effects on a cohort of children who may be missing out on essential education. There are ballots going on, so this is a real issue.

In order to understand this issue—indeed, to understand it at the micro, school level—I will assume that this Bill has been passed and the Government have established a minimum service level for schools. At the heart of this is the question of how the Bill is going to operate. There are very many schools and therefore a great number of employers in the school sector. I am interested in how the Government expect to enforce a minimum service level in schools. Who will be the employer who may field a work order? Is it the head teacher? Is it the unpaid, volunteer governors? Is it the local authority? If it is the local authority, how will free schools fit into this because they do not have a local authority? Is the governing body of a free school then the accountable employer? Clearly, the Government will have thought through every detail here. I am very keen to hear the details of how the Government expect to manage minimum service level delivery at the school level.

Perhaps the Minister could then tell us how many teachers in a school will make up the minimum service level. I am not aware of any state schools that have too many teachers; indeed, most of them tell us that they have too few teachers and too few classroom assistants. So what will be a minimum service level for teaching children in our schools in the event of a strike? Will it be everything that they are doing now—in which case, as we will discuss in other areas, the strike would, in effect, be banned—or something else, such as childminding? If it is childminding, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, has set out the requirements that already exist under the statutory duties for schools and in the Department for Education’s guidance, which require head teachers to take into account the implications for how children are looked after and safeguarded in the event of a strike.

It is good that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is here. I really want to hear about all of that micro detail because it is understanding the detail that will help us to see inside the Bill and bring it to life. Because it is such a skeleton Bill, it is impossible for us really to understand the cogs and wheels that will fit together and deliver a minimum service level for our schools.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 7 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

We now come to Amendment 8 and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, this time.

Amendment 8

Moved by