Creative Industries: Qualifications
Earl of Effingham Excerpts(4 days, 11 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, we thank the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, for securing this debate and for her long record of work with the arts on protecting copyright for creators against generative AI, championing inclusive music and arts education and advocating for the financial resilience of the UK’s theatre and cultural sectors.
It was not a surprise that the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, gave us an in-depth insight into the creative industries, given his role as chair of the Court of Governors at the University of the Arts London, nor that the noble Baroness, Lady Kingsmill, given her directorship at Zara, flagged fashion design among other things. The noble Lord, Lord John, talked about a “deep pool” of creative talent: the creative industries combined contribute £124 billion to the economy and employ 2.4 million people, over 7% of the national workforce. Their output has grown at more than 1.5 times the national average since 2010.
Creative education is valued. That is not in doubt. The question is whether these reforms will produce qualifications that enable people for jobs, for university and for higher technical study. This process has cross-party parentage. It began with the report from the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, in 2011, which found that too much post-16 vocation provision had little or no market value. When in government, we started to remove overlapping qualifications, and the current Government have continued. Rationalising a landscape of more than 900 such courses is essential in principle, and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support the momentum. The “Wolf test”, if I might call it that, remains entirely correct: a qualification exists to serve the learner, not the system that awards it. However, reforms should derive from evidence-based data and analysis. Skills England’s assessment of the creative industries, published only last month, excluded media and communication courses from its priority analysis because, historically, it is a low portion of those education leavers who progress into priority occupations.
My noble friend Lord Vaizey flagged the 360-hours limit, the noble Lord, Lord Knight, referenced a “shallow breadth” and the Government’s own consultation response reported that both industry and higher education warned that 360 guided learning hours is insufficient to establish practical competence. That warning was overridden. The extended diplomas being defunded carried 1,080 hours of study; their replacement carries only 360. UK Music points out that occupational standards for portfolio-based music careers simply do not exist, while the Minister for Skills conceded that the original transition was, in her words, “too aggressive”. It is the case that the timetable was fixed before the design existed.”
We believe that a qualification must do at least one of three things. It must confer occupational competence that employers recognise; it must carry currency with universities; or it must provide a ladder to higher technical study at levels 4 and 5. The new system appears to fail those tests. T-levels, after five years, are enrolling around 28,000 students, just 2.5% of the 1.1 million-strong level 3 cohort. Creative placements are structurally the hardest to supply, because a sector of freelancers and small firms cannot provide 45-day placements at scale. V-levels will be classroom only and one A-level in size. They cannot realistically confer occupational competence; their currency with universities is untested; and no progression route to levels 4 and 5 has been published. Prima facie, this looks like simplification, not reform, which is the failure that the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, identified.
Some 78% of creative employers report shortages in their three highest occupational groups, against a benchmark of 31% across all other industries. The Government’s skills audit, published in May, highlights the shortage occupations of software developers, graphic and multimedia designers and advertising and marketing executives, with 63% of creative employers expecting digital skills demand to rise, driven by artificial intelligence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Caine, referenced Skills England highlighting that over 1 million new workers will be needed. Some 60,000 creative workers are currently not proficient in their roles, because technology is outpacing the training. Skills England has projected this large number of workers needed in priority creative occupations by 2035, many requiring qualifications at level 4 and above. Based on that evidence, the pipeline the country needs is technical, creative, digital and higher level. Yet, with all due respect, nothing the Government have published maps creative V-levels or T-levels to a shortage occupation. Surely, the right course of action is to build replacements that are demonstrably better. Both T-levels and V-levels should offer this, yet at the moment neither does.
The noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, talked about the two-year UAL extended diploma. In terms of transition, the University of the Arts London extended diploma in creative media production and technology will be defunded from autumn 2027, due to a suggested overlap with T-levels. The UAL disputes the merit of that, in both content and approach, and is appealing against it. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, quite rightly referenced the last carriage of the train, the back of the queue, because creative V-levels will not arrive until 2030, which means a three-year void with no large creative qualification. The reality is that providers act on defunding dates years in advance: courses close, specialist staff leave and recruitment collapses ahead of the deadline.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, talked about west Everton parents, carers and disadvantaged students; the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, talked about disadvantaged people; and the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, flagged that students may not achieve the grades they need. We should also be asking what will happen to the students who will be deplaced. T-level entry requirements commonly demand five GCSEs at grade 5 or above, including English and maths. However, the Association of School and College Leaders has confirmed that students on these qualifications are disproportionately special educational needs pupils, as referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, or disadvantaged pupils without those grades. What will happen to them?
Would it not be fair, reasonable and sensible to first undertake a mapping of courses with the labour market? Which shortage occupation on the Government’s own audits will each creative V-level and T-level serve? Secondly, we need to publish the progression routes for students. What articulated routes to levels 4 and 5 will be attached to each qualification? Thirdly, we must understand and publish whether any new qualifications will be accepted by employers and universities before, not after, the existing qualifications are switched off. We would also suggest addressing the communication problem seemingly reflected in T-level uptake rates. A 2% uptake rate indicates that they are not as widespread as they should be or the Government hope they will be.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Caine, repeatedly and quite rightly asked: what exactly does this mean? The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, said to pause for thought and reflection on what will happen. The noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord John, suggested not changing it without full analysis. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition believe that the measure of this reform is not just the number of qualifications to be streamlined but whether a talented 16 year-old in 2028 will have a route into that workforce as good as the one that is now being taken away. If the answer is yes, that is a great result. But if the answer is no, which appears to be the case, based on many noble Lords’ reflections today, we hope that the Government will address the constructive challenges from all sides of your Lordships’ House on this incredibly important issue for the creative sector.
Lifelong Learning (Fee Limits) Regulations 2026
Earl of Effingham Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches we have also long supported the principle of lifelong learning. Because of the rapidly changing economy, where technology, artificial intelligence and the transition to a greener economy are reshaping jobs, people need the opportunity to retrain and upskill throughout their lives. Education should not be something that ends in your early 20s; it should be available for people whenever they need it. I say that as someone who went into higher education in their late 20s.
These regulations are important and part of implementing the lifelong learning entitlement by introducing a credit-based fee system for modular studies. Rather than relying solely on annual fee caps designed for traditional three-year degrees, providers will be able to charge fees proportionate to the number of credits studied. This is a sensible and necessary technical reform if modular learning is to work in practice.
However, as my Lib Dem colleague Ian Sollom argued in the House of Commons, changing the mechanism for charging fees is only one piece of the puzzle. If the Government genuinely want lifelong learning to succeed, they must also address the barriers that prevent adults from returning to education in the first place, because many adults are balancing work, caring responsibilities and the rising cost of living. Flexible courses alone will not encourage participation if learners cannot afford to take time away from work, arrange childcare and access maintenance support. The danger is that we create a system that is technically more flexible but remains financially out of reach for many of those who would benefit the most.
There are also legitimate concerns from universities and colleges about the implementation. Higher education institutions are already operating under severe financial pressure. They are being asked to redesign courses, develop modular provision and invest in new admin systems, while maintaining significant financial uncertainty. If the Government want us to embrace these reforms, they must ensure that the funding and regulatory framework give institutions the confidence to innovate rather than simply observe additional costs.
The Lib Dems believe that lifelong learning should also be driven by the needs of the learner and the employer together. Skills shortages continue across sectors, including engineering, construction, digital industries, health and education. The lifelong learning entitlement should help adults to access high-quality qualifications that respond to those workforce needs, while also giving individuals the freedom to pursue learning and personal development and career progression.
While we welcome the direction of travel represented by these regulations, they cannot be viewed in isolation. Success will depend on a wider package of student support, employer engagement, higher-quality careers advice and sustainable funding for universities and further education colleges. Therefore, I ask the Minister three simple questions. First, what assessment has been made of the likely impact of these regulations on participation by mature and disadvantaged learners? Secondly, what support will be available to help providers to implement modular delivery successfully? Finally, how will the Government ensure that the lifelong learning entitlement genuinely widens participation, rather than simply changing the way the fees are calculated?
As I said, the Lib Dems support the ambitions of making learning available throughout life, but ambitions must be matched by opportunity, affordability and proper investment. Only then will this important reform deliver what it promises.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. Lifelong access to high-quality education is a key component for a successful society. Access to resources that improve the skills and capabilities of the workforce goes hand in hand with a more dynamic economy and a more independent public. It provides individuals with the freedom to engage in subjects that are their passion and to strive for careers in the industries that they desire. This is largely the raison d’être of universities in our country. Undergraduate courses provide a leg-up into the workforce, while postgraduate and part-time courses allow for further specialisation and reorientation.
That is indeed a reasonable model, but while the structure of post-18 education is sound, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition believe that the incentives can be improved. Undergraduate course tuition fees are capped and thus allow for a broad uptake; conversely, modular and short courses are not. Therefore, there is a rational financial barrier to further higher education. Particularly in the current, fast-changing labour market, which will only accelerate, there is an eminently reasonable case for changing this current model. People will need to be able to retrain and reorient themselves, bolder and faster. Skilled education will become all the more important. That is why His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support these regulations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, played an integral part in the Augar review. The previous Conservative Government welcomed the recommendations of that independent review into post-18 education and funding and introduced the primary legislation that makes a lifelong learning entitlement possible. We are therefore grateful that the Government have now taken the steps to make this a reality.
Largely underpinning these regulations is the concept of proportionality. Using credits as the standard unit of learning time is the best way in which to achieve this uniformly. Limiting the number of credits that can be charged per course time and per activity is a start to ensuring that courses are rightly valued. But proportionality of credits does not necessarily equal proportionality of quality and we have many times highlighted the extent of less valuable courses currently within the market. This remains a concern.
It would be fair and reasonable to ask how the Government will ensure that the quality of education matches the cost of the degree past simply looking at credit numbers. This is of particular concern with part-time courses. Flexibility of education is of course a good thing, but it cannot be used to justify students enrolling in modular courses and not having face-to-face time with a teacher. How does the Minister propose to ensure that the highest possible in-person education is taking place face to face, involving engaging with each other and truly gaining from the experience?
In a similar line of thought to that of my noble friend Lord Johnson, we ask more generally what the feedback mechanisms are for this measure. How will its implementation and success be monitored both for providers and students, as referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed? It was surprising that the Minister in the other place did not answer this question. How will the providers who will naturally incur an administrative cost in implementing this new system be supported in the transition?
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, in summary, these regulations should be viewed as positive and we hope that they are effective.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I genuinely thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. It is always refreshing to debate something with people who were there at the beginning and who were part of the very important Augar review that led to this work in the first place. I appreciate the points made in the debate and I will endeavour to respond to them as well as possible.
Before turning to the specific questions, I will restate why these regulations matter. They are a critical and indispensable step in delivering the lifelong learning entitlement. To respond to some of the points made, that reform is not just about how we deliver modular courses, important though those will be as an opportunity, but how we will, for example, bring further and higher education closer together, open up more flexible and modular study, and give people a real choice in how and when they learn and make it easy for them to return to learning throughout their lives.
As we have said, these regulations set the tuition fee limits that apply to higher education courses and modules that are funded by the lifelong learning entitlement and that begin on or after 1 January 2027. They are not designed to overhaul the entire student finance system, in terms of some of the controversies that we have seen recently. They address a central weakness in that the current system is too rigid and too focused on traditional full-time study and it does not work well enough for adults who want to retrain or upskill across their working lives.
The noble Lord, Lord Johnson, is right that the test for this policy is whether or not this translates into greater participation and whether or not the flexibility enables there to be more opportunities for a wider range of people to upskill and return to learning, at different stages in their working lives. The AI example that the noble Lord used is interesting, and he has previously, and quite rightly, challenged us about the relationship between the growth and skills levy reforms—the apprenticeship levy, in essence—their links to the lifelong learning entitlement and how we ensure that employers have a role in developing the flexible courses that the LLE enables. A key part of our reform and the direction of travel for higher education is to emphasise its role in growth and the relationships it needs to build with employers, which is why they are an integral part of the HE learning and skills partnerships now.
However, this does not necessarily mean that the only way to be upskilled in AI, for example, would be through the LLE. It depends on how you want to learn. As part of our reform of the growth and skills levy, we have introduced short courses that can be funded through the levy for those who are employed, and AI is one of the first areas in which we have developed those. So it may be appropriate for employers to enable those in employment to take one of those short courses using the growth and skills levy. If you want to do something more fundamental, which requires a course of at least 30 credits, the lifelong learning entitlement would be more appropriate to use, so that you can go back to a broader higher education course.
On the point about scale, we have been careful to introduce the LLE incrementally, in a way that recognises some of the risks that we have seen in the higher education system recently of uncontrolled expansion and a failure to focus on the quality of what is being offered. That is why we have taken a relatively tightly controlled approach to the first providers of modular courses from January 2027. They will not simply, as I think was suggested, be more of the same but chunked up a bit. For example, the opportunity for further education to provide these courses and for students to be funded through the LLE is quite a significant change and an important development. But we are being careful about the way that we introduce these courses. We will want to expand this in the future, although I am not in a position to say when, at this point. Nevertheless, this is the start of something that will be more radical.
The noble Lord also raised the levels at which the LLE will fund. It is right that the LLE is currently focused on modular and flexible learning at levels 4 to 6, where the greatest need for retraining and upskilling has been identified. The postgraduate master’s loan and postgraduate doctoral loan remain available to help with course fees and living costs, and they provide flexibility to the student.
Young People and Work
Earl of Effingham Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the Cross Benches, then the Conservative Benches.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord and I have discussed his suggestion, both in this Chamber and in my office. I would not agree with his characterisation that is a scattergun approach. What we have is a cross-government recognition of the challenge of ensuring that young people can get into work or can learn in pathways that will lead them to satisfactory work. That requires action in schools to identify young people who will potentially become NEET. It requires action, which we are taking, in the welfare system. It requires action in the Department of Health to support young people’s mental health needs. It requires the youth strategy that this Government have already produced. That is not scattergun; it is consistent cross-government action to tackle this problem.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
Alan Milburn’s report highlighted the harms of social media for young people. Just a few weeks ago, the front page of the Mirror newspaper ran with the headline, “Kids’ social media ban within weeks”, citing Liz Kendall. Can the Minister please give us an update? Noble Lords were clear during the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill on the importance of this.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Of course, during the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we took legislative powers to be able to implement the results of the consultation that is currently under way. I am glad that the noble Earl peruses the Daily Mirror, but I am afraid he will have to wait a bit longer, with the certainty that this Government will take action, for the results of that consultation.
Further Education (Initial Teacher Training) Regulations 2026
Earl of Effingham Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, further to what my noble friend has just said, can I say that there used to be a very highly regarded City & Guilds qualification for teachers in further education, which virtually all of them held? Of course, teachers in FE are nearly always also practitioners, so they spend time actually doing the thing that they are teaching about. It is really important that that is reviewed as well.
I agree with what the Government are doing, but the biggest worry about FE is with the scale of pay. FE teachers are paid considerably below schoolteachers; they often have a bigger burden to bear—they have a very wide variety of students of different ages, and they get landed with things like the resits for GCSE maths and English, which is just iniquitous. What are the Government doing to address the pay of FE teachers, who are fundamental if we want to upgrade the skills of the country?
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition agree that all initial teacher training courses should set and achieve the highest possible standards so that every learner benefits from high-quality teaching. There is no disagreement across this Committee about the importance of well-trained teachers in further education. The sector plays a crucial role in equipping people with the skills that they need to succeed and thrive, and the quality of teaching is central to that mission.
The Government’s own assessment makes clear why action is needed. The current system has led to inconsistency in provision, and Ofsted has expressed serious concerns about the quality of some courses. That is not acceptable for trainee teachers, employers or students. In that context, introducing a clearer framework for initial teacher training in further education is a reasonable step. Establishing expectations around course content and delivery and requiring providers to meet them should help to drive greater consistency across the sector.
However, there are important questions about how this framework will operate in practice. Its success will depend heavily on effective oversight and enforcement. The Government have made it clear that compliance will be monitored primarily through Ofsted inspections, yet they also acknowledge that this will place additional demands on the system, with further resourcing decisions deferred to future fiscal events. So it should be fair and reasonable to ask how the Government will ensure that Ofsted is provided with the adequate funding that it needs to carry out this role properly. Without sufficient resource, there is a real risk that these new standards will exist on paper but not be consistently upheld in practice.
More broadly, your Lordships’ House will note that the Government have left open the possibility of further intervention in future, including tighter controls over the provider market. That underlines the importance of getting this right now and ensuring that the system is both robust and workable from day one.
In conclusion, we support the principle that initial teacher training in further education must be of the highest quality. However, the Government must ensure that the necessary resources and oversight are in place so that these reforms can be meaningful in practice.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords and noble Baroness for their contributions to this important discussion. I personally had the benefit of attending an FE college and, from a very early age, I recognised the extremely important contribution that FE makes to our rich landscape of educational provision.
I will try to pick up the main points made across the discussion. This Government are absolutely focused on improving the quality of teaching across the whole education system. This is an important turning point for FE teacher training. We have to be honest—— I hope noble Lords will recognise this from previous years in government—that it has been the Cinderella of the teacher training system for too long. We have to emphasise the Government’s commitment to promoting high and rising standards in teaching, recognising that there are examples of exceptionally good practice. We need to make sure that that excellence is protected and that trainee teachers and their employers have full confidence in the training they receive.
Schools (Recording and Reporting of Seclusion and Restraint) (England) Regulations 2025
Earl of Effingham Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I have spent many years working with young people, particularly the most vulnerable. We on these Benches support the main aims of this statutory instrument. The safety, dignity, and well-being of our children must always come first. When a young person is secluded, it means they are kept alone or physically restrained and their movement limited. It is a serious step. These sensitive situations must be handled with great care, and it is therefore right that we improve transparency. It is also right that parents receive a written record of what has happened, as soon as possible. The department is correct in recognising that seclusion can be just as harmful as the use of force. However, although the principle behind these regulations is sound, there are concerns about how the Government have gone about introducing them.
First, we should acknowledge the confusion that occurred during the rollout. As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee pointed out, the original measure had to be withdrawn and replaced because the Minister accidentally signed the wrong draft. We ask our students to check their work carefully before handing it in. It is reasonable to expect the same standards here. As the committee rightly said, this kind of mistake should not have happened.
However, the bigger concern is the Government’s impact assessment. The Government estimate that the cost of recording these incidents will be between £1.6 million and £6.3 million a year, equivalent to the time of about 137 full-time teachers. Yet this estimate only includes 2,443 independent schools in England. Why? Because the Department for Education decided that state schools are not businesses and therefore left them out of the calculations. This is a serious oversight. There are more than 21,000 state schools in England—almost nine times the number of independent schools. By leaving them out, the Government have avoided confronting the true cost of this policy. In reality, the amount of teaching time required will be far greater than the figures suggest.
We should also look at the assumptions behind these figures. The department estimates that it will take two teachers between 30 and 120 seconds to record an incident and report it to a parent. Has anyone making these calculations worked in a busy school recently? The idea that two teachers can promptly and sensitively record an incident involving restraint and seclusion in one or two minutes does not reflect reality. As the committee noted, the estimated time is unrealistically low. In practice, this will mean that already overworked, overstretched teachers will have to work longer hours or spend less time on the other important tasks such as teaching and supporting their pupils.
Let me be clear: we fully support the aims of protecting students and ensuring that parents are properly informed. However, how the Government introduced these measures raises legitimate concerns. There have been unavoidable procedural mistakes and very optimistic estimates of the time involved. The impact assessment leaves out 21,000 state schools, where most of this work will take place. What practical support will be provided to teachers in state schools to help them meet these new responsibilities without the unreasonable burden on staff—who are already working extremely hard?
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward this statutory instrument. We understand His Majesty’s Government’s intention. It has been some years since the last update on reasonable force policy, and there has never been a consistent and standardised measure across our schools on how seclusion and restraint are recorded and reported. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support the principle of introducing such a regime, as does the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley.
However, much like my noble friend Lord Lucas, we would like to probe the Government on the impact assessment and the updated statutory guidance that will come into force in April. We understand the rationale behind the need for new guidance after many years, and we appreciate that the grounds on which teachers will be legally permitted to use reasonable force will be the same. However, there are several issues on which we seek clarification.
The new guidance makes it clear that teachers must be
“adequately trained in its safe and lawful use, and in preventative strategies”.
While it stops short of implementing a national training standard, the impact assessment assumes that each school will be responsible for ensuring that training is completed in accordance with the principles of the guidance. The impact assessment attempts to outline how this will work in practice. However, our concerns resound with those of my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed.
As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted so well, the department has not accounted for schools in the state sector in its budgeting and suggests a cost of just over £350,000 to independent schools. Are the Government suggesting that there will be no cost to the state sector in implementing this change? If that is the case, can we please have clarification on how they get to their zero-cost calculation?
Student Loans: Review
Earl of Effingham Excerpts(5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very important point. I went to university without a student loan, but I was part of only 14% of young people who were able to benefit from higher education. That figure now stands at more than 50%, and we need a student finance system that recognises that. I reiterate that the Government are making changes to student finance. We will reintroduce student grants and we are increasing maintenance loans for students. We are therefore opening up the opportunity for more students from lower-income backgrounds to get the benefits that higher education brings.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham put it so well, Rachel Reeves says that the student loan system is “fair and reasonable”; Lucy Powell, on the other hand, says that the system is “unfair” and “egregious”, while Bridget Phillipson says that it is not a priority for the Government. With three contradictory views on a review of student loans, is it any surprise to the Minister that, according to the latest Ipsos survey, over two-thirds of the country
“do not have confidence that the Government is running the country … properly, competently or seriously”?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I wonder whether the noble Earl has had the opportunity to discuss with some of his colleagues whether they believe that the system that they introduced is a scam. This is a system that was introduced by the previous Government. Plan 2 is no longer in operation for students starting today. Finally, if the leader of the Opposition is trying to suggest to students that they will repay less through a cap on interest, she would, of course, be misleading them, because that would not be true.
Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper
Earl of Effingham Excerpts(5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I chair an advisory group on how we can develop and deliver the lifelong learning entitlement, which is well attended by vice-chancellors. I talk about the opportunities for lifelong learning whenever I get the chance.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, we support the Government’s White Paper objective that higher education reforms will drive economic growth. But that will work only if degrees benefit both students and the taxpayer. Does the Minister agree that there are currently too many degrees which contribute to neither growth nor positive outcomes?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Although the noble Earl did not revert to the language that some of his colleagues have used about university degrees, I share the view that, if we are expecting both young people and the state to invest in higher education, it needs to be of high quality. That is why I support the Office for Students in its current work to have a better definition of “quality” for higher education courses and why we have made it clear that we will want to link future increases in tuition fees to that measure of quality.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Earl of Effingham Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition understand how crucial allergy safety is in schools, and access to adrenaline auto-injectors is pivotal. Centralising and co-ordinating policy across education establishments is a much-needed step that would standardise current voluntary safety measures such as the provision of AAIs and provide a universal level of access to all students. That is a principle in Amendment 209, referred to as Benedict’s law, that we support.
It would be remiss of me not to remind noble Lords: half of schools do not stock a spare auto-injector; 70% of schools do not have the recommended measures of spare pens, training and allergy policies, and individual healthcare plans in place; and 20% of fatal food anaphylaxis reactions in school-aged children or young people in England happen in schools.
This is a critical issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said that it was “basic”, the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, referred to it as “best practice”, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said that the cost of delay is “massive”. They are entirely correct.
We also support the principle behind the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. It makes sense that those contracted on school premises should predominantly follow the same policies as the schools themselves. This is all the more important when catering firms are involved, given the obvious heightened risk of allergic reactions to food.
While there should, as always, be an appropriate analysis of the impact on both the taxpayer and the affected firms, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition understand the great importance of these measures. We hope, as many noble Lords have hoped tonight, that the Government see the merit of focusing on this and agree that schools should be safe places for everyone—and that should be non-negotiable.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, in concluding this group, I start by paying tribute to those who have campaigned so hard on school allergy safety, especially Helen and Peter Blythe, Tanya and Nadim Ednan-Laperouse, my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley and other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, in introducing Amendment 209 this evening. The tragic deaths of Benedict Blythe and Natasha Ednan-Laperouse are a stark reminder of the dangers of anaphylaxis. We have heard other examples of that this evening, including the personal experiences of noble Lords.
Amendment 209 seeks to introduce mandatory allergy safety provisions for all schools, including policy adoption, individual healthcare plans, adrenaline auto-injectors and staff training. As stated in Committee, schools have existing duties, under Section 100 of the Children and Families Act 2014, to make arrangements to support pupils with medical conditions including allergy.
However, I am pleased to set out the Government’s plans to transform allergy safety in schools and take forward the campaign for Benedict’s law. Before September 2026, we will issue new statutory guidance and we will consult on it imminently. For the first time it will put specific focus on allergy safety alongside other medical conditions. Through statutory guidance, we will require schools to have a dedicated allergy safety policy. This will set out how the school will manage the risks of allergy and anaphylaxis. It will emphasise the importance of whole-school awareness and understanding, grounded in training for all staff. As this training will be set out in statutory guidance, schools will be expected to comply with it.
Schools need to be conscious and active in managing the risks of allergy, and they need to take steps to minimise the risk of pupils coming into contact with their known allergens. We will be clear that pupils with allergy must be fully included in the life of the school, with arrangements to support them on external trips and visits. Our guidance will set out that a school’s allergy safety arrangements need to be managed actively, with a named governor and senior leader. The reports of incidents, near misses and safety drills will provide evidence to review and improve policies.
But no precautions can be perfect. In many cases, as noble Lords have said, children with no history of allergy will have their first reaction while at school, so it is essential that schools have robust emergency response procedures. While many of those with severe allergies carry their own prescribed adrenaline auto-injectors, schools are able to purchase their own as spares. Many do so, but our statutory guidance will be clear that we expect schools to do so.
This is an important responsibility for schools. Two adrenaline auto-injectors can be purchased at a high street pharmacist for around £150, and many schools already stock them as part of their existing allergy safety arrangements. They must take ownership of these life-saving devices. We are working with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that schools are able to purchase spares as easily and cheaply as possible.
Strong school-wide policies are essential, but it is equally important to capture key information for each child or young person. Our guidance will be clear that every child whose medical condition requires active management by their school should have an individual healthcare plan which specifies the arrangements that will be put in place. This includes those with allergy.
As others have mentioned, yesterday my colleague, the Minister for Early Education, met sector experts, including members of the National Allergy Strategy Group, the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation and the Benedict Blythe Foundation. We have invited them to help us co-produce our new statutory guidance. We are working quickly so that we can consult and issue new guidance as soon as possible. For that reason, let me be clear that we do not disagree with the principle, the objectives or the detail of the noble Baroness’s amendments, but we are already introducing robust measures to address those concerns.
Amendments 210 and 212, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, would require schools to include detailed allergy provisions in contracts with external caterers—policy compliance, allergen information sharing, measures to prevent cross-contamination, and actions if an allergic reaction occurs. I recognise the noble Lord’s determination to secure robust safeguards. However, prescribing contractual content through primary legislation is far too inflexible. Requiring catering providers to comply with each school’s individual allergy policy would be enormously bureaucratic and difficult, probably driving up costs to schools. It is also unnecessary. I understand the concern that caterers should be clear about the requirements to protect children with allergies, but they must already provide allergen information and must manage allergens safely as set out in food regulations and in Food Standards Agency guidance.
Amendments 213 and 214, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, would make the NHS responsible for providing adrenaline auto-injectors to schools. The NHS already provides devices to individuals on prescription, and regulations permit schools to purchase spare adrenaline auto-injectors, as I have already outlined. As I have also said, that is an important responsibility for schools, and they must take ownership of these life-saving devices. We will continue to work with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that they can be secured as easily as possible.
Turning to my noble friend Lady Kennedy, I believe I have covered the majority of the questions she asked, but I understand that I have not covered all of them. I undertake to write with anything that has not been covered in my response so far.
I hope noble Lords will recognise the considerable and important progress that has been made, thanks to the engagement of the department and my honourable friend the Minister for Early Education with campaigners who have, as we have heard, made an enormous difference to children. Everybody in this Chamber should be pleased to have ensured that, and I commit the Government to—
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I too have added my name to this important amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and indeed with the late great Judge Munby, that a full incorporation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is the gold standard to which many of us campaigners have long aspired. Tonight, however, we are talking about just one little part of it—a very important part.
Devolution has often allowed the devolved nations and regions to do something different and more adventurous—to show the way. Wales and Scotland have done just that, particularly in relation to children. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said in her opening speech, both Wales and Scotland already have a mandatory system of child’s rights impact assessments. As a resident of Wales, I will say a little more about how it works there, though I also congratulate Scotland on its approach.
Over the years, in discussion with former Minister Edward Timpson and former Minister Zahawi, sometimes accompanied by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, if I remember correctly, I have promoted CRIAs for the sake not only of the children themselves but of effective and efficient government. In similar conversations today, I could have now called in aid the fact that, in Wales, research has shown that CRIAs, where properly applied, result in better attention to children’s rights under the UNCRC and better outcomes for children. Crucially, in the interests of efficient government, they help to prevent complex and expensive litigation later when things go wrong. These proactive and preventive measures can ensure that we get it right first time; surely, that is what we all aspire to do in making policy.
The recent debate on the regular report of the Children’s Commissioner for Wales showed how deeply the language of children’s rights has permeated parliamentary scrutiny and debate in the Senedd. Over 250 CRIAs have already been carried out, covering multiple areas. They have not been found to be disproportionate, as the Minister seemed to think in Committee when she said that voluntary arrangements would be less challenging and more manageable. As a matter of fact, I think they should be challenging. However, as with the Welsh laws on mandatory reporting of child abuse, the CRIA system has been implemented in a way that is both sensible and proportionate, with a screening procedure at the start, which indicates whether UNCRC rights are engaged by the policy under discussion.
Many years ago, I had a discussion with officials at the DfE about how the Government prepare for their five-yearly report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, according to their obligations under the convention. There appeared to be no system at all, resulting in a bit of a scramble every five years when the report date was looming. I pointed out that if CRIAs were done and recorded routinely, not only would they produce better policy but they could form the foundation for the regular report without a lot of fuss. By the way, it would certainly result in more favourable concluding observations in the Committee’s final report. I am afraid we really are an outlier in several respects.
However, although a template was produced in 2018, soon after Minister Zahawi took over from Minister Timpson, they have not been routinely used, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said. For the reasons that I have outlined, this is a missed opportunity. I hope the Government will have a rethink in line with Amendment 221.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, we admire the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for her relentless focus on this issue, which is obviously well intended. But as we made clear in Committee, we are not in a position to support this amendment. Our reservations stem from the belief that its remit would extend to every ministerial decision that may have, either directly or indirectly, an impact on the well-being of children. It may add an additional legal layer of bureaucracy to a legislative process that is, unfortunately, already weighed down and could therefore hinder the decision-making process. While it is no doubt intended to improve the well-being of children, it has the potential to be detrimental to swift and decisive action in the best interests of children, and for those reasons we are not able to support it.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 221, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lister, would place a duty on Ministers and officials to prepare and publish a child rights impact assessment, or CRIA, in relation to all relevant legislation, policy and budget development which will impact on children’s well-being, social care or education prior to the decision being taken.
I restate this Government’s continued commitment to upholding children’s rights and the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. We continue to work closely with key stakeholders that advocate for the rights of children. As stated in Committee, members of the department meet quarterly with representatives from children’s rights charities, providing Ministers and officials with opportunities to hear directly from experts in the sector, helping us to put children’s rights at the heart of policy-making.
We agree that impacts on children should be carefully assessed as part of policy-making; however, such an amendment is unnecessary, as upon ratifying the UNCRC in 1991, the UK Government made a commitment to give due regard to the UNCRC when making new policy and legislation. Compliance is demonstrated through the periodic reporting process every five years when the Government report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child on progress the UK has made in upholding children’s rights.
To pick up on the points about devolved Governments, powerfully made by different contributors—the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, clearly wanted to speak about Wales—as we say, these are devolved matters. Devolved Administrations are free to develop their approach to children’s rights and we are confident that the UK Government’s approach fulfils our duties under the UNCRC. This Government are committed to being child-centred and will continue to put children at the heart of our decision-making. We will continue to assess the impact of the devolved Governments’ changes, including the duty on their Ministers to complete child rights impact assessments for relevant work.
Safeguarding children’s rights is of utmost importance, but assessments should be effective and proportionate. Introducing a statutory requirement for Ministers and officials to prepare and publish CRIAs for all measures that affect children would be a significant undertaking. Government departments will continue to complete CRIAs where necessary, including on this legislation, which has been published and will be updated. The Covid inquiry noted that where mandatory arrangements are in place, for example in Scotland and Wales, CRIAs were not completed.
Furthermore, we have heard the strength of feeling on this matter in this House and in subsequent engagements, including between the Minister for Children and Families and my noble friend Lady Lister. My department will therefore be upskilling officials across government on the importance of children’s rights in policy-making. This includes delivering training to officials across government on the importance of children’s rights and supporting the completion of the CRIAs when developing policies or legislation that may impact on children and young people.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my other amendment in this group, Amendment 243B, but I will just add a few words on Amendment 243E, following on from my noble friend Lady Tyler’s comments. We are in danger of abandoning an entire generation of young people who do not follow the traditional university route. While apprenticeship places at levels 5 and 6 continue to expand, opportunities at levels 3 and 4 are shrinking. This surely is a cruel paradox. Young people who have university degrees will be able to access higher-level apprenticeships. Meanwhile, those who most need levels 3 and 4 to begin their careers—16 to 18 year-olds without prior qualifications—are left stranded. These young people are not lacking in ambition or ability. They simply seek a different path—one that is rooted in practical skills and real-world experience. Yet we are closing the doors in their faces at the very moment that they are ready to step through them.
We saw at first hand the transformative power of apprenticeships for young people who thrive outside traditional academic settings. This amendment would ensure that, as we develop apprenticeship policy, we do not forget the young people who need these opportunities the most. It is about fairness, opening pathways, and giving every young person, regardless of whether they go to a university, a genuine chance to build a meaningful future. I urge the House to support it.
On my Amendment 243B, we know that schools are not VAT-rated, and that sixth forms in schools are not VAT-rated. Then along came the academisation of our schools, and a very clever move was made by the noble Lord, Lord Gove—I hope I am not using his name in vain; he is not here—who saw a very quick way to enable sixth forms to become part of multi-academy trusts. So, guess what? The sixth forms that chose to go into a multi-academy trust were not VAT-rated. Those poor sixth forms who decided to stay on their own and not be swallowed up by a multi-academy trust are VAT-ed: they have to pay VAT. How unfair is that?
The average stand-alone sixth-form college turnover is around £15 million, and it spends 80% or more on staff, examination fees, food and depreciation, which does not attract VAT. So a 20% refund on what remains would save them about £500,000. But, of course, would it be unthinkable that the DfE would bring sixth-form colleges into Section 33: in other words, they would not be VAT-rated but would not be FE colleges? Imagine what that extra money would do to attract students and further the skills agenda that is so important to the Government. Perhaps the Minister will tell us clearly why these stand-alone sixth-form colleges cannot be treated in a fair and equitable way, like sixth forms in schools or sixth forms in multi-academy trusts.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging group and we thank all noble Lords who have made valuable contributions.
Amendment 222 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, is indeed well intentioned and highlights important issues, but we hold reservations that a national tutoring guarantee may risk diverting resources and overstretching teachers. It would be our preference for schools themselves to decide whether a tutoring programme works and then to identify the most suitable approach for their pupils. We thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for his approach, but we are not able to support him on this particular amendment.
On the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mott, it is clear that more needs to be done to support children with a parent in prison. If we understood it correctly, the Minister previously suggested that the Government were undertaking an analysis between the Department for Education and the Ministry of Justice to address this issue. We would be most grateful if the Minister could update your Lordships’ House on what that work is which is being undertaken, and when actions will be evidenced to answer the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Mott.
Regarding Amendment 243 in the name of my noble kinswoman, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, schools should absolutely be safe and resilient, and we seek assurance from the Minister that the Government have this covered.
We welcome Amendment 243A the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Acton. It is clear that we should not allow safeguarding procedures to be misused for individual political preferences and means. It is entirely correct that this is given the full weight of the law if it is not consistently applied by both teachers and heads. We thank my noble friend Lord Young for his commitment to this issue and urge the Government to stand united on it.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the two amendments in this group were designed to, shall we say, spur the Government to tell us where we are with the developments on special educational needs. Basically, they are saying that we should have a structure you can teach all the way through. I do not think there is much point in saying any more, so I will ask but one question. Is the Minister, speaking on behalf of the Government, in a position to give us a date, preferably not in general terms of “soon”, “possibly” or “imminently”, but a date in time—possibly the number of weeks: let us start low and build up—when we will get the White Paper? When will we start to see what the Government think is appropriate? That is not too much to ask; it is already roughly half a year late. So, just that: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name to try to extract an answer from the Government.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his two amendments. The establishment of a national body is a factor that needs to be considered in the important and pressing issue of special education needs and disabilities. There is certainly the argument for a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence equivalent for SEND. But the most important point, in our view, is that, whatever the approach taken in the Government’s forthcoming White Paper, it is based upon firm evidence.
The same principle applies to the noble Lord’s other amendment, which would introduce an obligation to deliver the national curriculum to children with special education needs and disabilities. Whatever approach is taken, it must also align with the existing evidence base.
An incredibly diverse and wide-ranging list of requirements is put on schools for children with education, health and care plans. Although it may be possible to deliver the national curriculum in line with these—we note that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, allows for disapplications—if the Government were to accept this, we would suggest an extensive pilot scheme to undertake a full, top-down and bottom-up approach, ensuring rigorous testing before introduction.
We hope, in line with the request of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the Minister will also be able to confirm that curriculum policy will feature in the coming White Paper—and please can we have a date?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Much as I try to satisfy Members in the House of Lords—for all the good it does me—no, you cannot have a date. Come on—everybody knows that you cannot have a date, even at one o’clock in the morning. But I will try to respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in his amendments.
Just to be clear, as a starting point, we share the noble Lord’s ambition for every child to have an education that meets their needs. We are determined to fix the SEND system and rebuild families’ trust by improving inclusivity and SEND expertise in schools, giving teachers the tools to identify and support needs early, and strengthening accountability for inclusion. The amendments the noble Lord has raised speak to the heart of our vision: an inclusive education system, built on strong leadership, evidence-based early intervention and high-quality teaching for every learner.
Amendment 228 seeks to place a new statutory duty on schools to adapt the national curriculum for individual pupils. We agree that children’s needs must be identified early and met well, but we fear that adding a new statutory requirement risks creating vague expectations around “sufficient” time and training, which could invite dispute rather than help schools.
Since Committee, we have continued constructive engagement with SEND organisations, including on identifying and supporting needs early and consistently, and on workforce development. We have recently announced £200 million to be invested over the course of this Parliament to upskill staff in every school, college and nursery, ensuring a skilled workforce for generations to come. This builds on at least £3 billion for high-needs capital between 2026-27 and 2029-30, to support children and young people with SEND or those who require alternative provision.
Amendment 229 proposes the establishment of a national body for SEND. We are aware of the challenges in the SEND system and how urgently we need to address them. However, as stated in Committee, we are concerned that a new body would simply create unnecessary bureaucracy. Our reforms will be set out in the forthcoming schools White Paper and will be underpinned by principles in line with the concerns the noble Lord has raised, and informed by continuing engagement with parents, teachers and experts, including through the recent national conversation on SEND. We are committed to supporting children with SEND through early identification, access to the right support at the right time, high-quality adaptive teaching and effective allocation of resources.
Noble Lords will not have too long to wait. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Child Poverty: Faith-based and Voluntary Sector Organisations
Earl of Effingham Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I commend my noble friend for the work that he did in Bristol, the leadership he showed and all the excellent work that was done there. I am absolutely clear that if we are to invest in the children of our country, we need to invest in all the children of our country, make sure that we reflect their needs and give them the opportunity to thrive within the context of all the things I said on the previous Question. I take the opportunity to say that I do not think these things can be done just by government. The examples he gave are a reason why Whitehall does not always know best. Trying to pull only the levers in my department will not give us the results we need. I absolutely welcome the opportunity to learn from what Bristol has done, and from what other metropolitan and mayoral authorities are doing and will carry on doing.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, parental employment, family stability and early intervention are key to reducing child poverty, but there are currently around 800,000 job vacancies in the UK. How exactly are the Government helping parents to get into work? We have jobs. The employees and employers want them to work together.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The noble Earl makes a really good point. That is what my department is for. One of the reasons why we are reinventing the whole way that jobcentres work is to be able to make sure that we can help these individuals get ready and take those jobs. We have real opportunity out there, but if we are to hit the kind of employment targets we want, we must give the people who are farthest from the labour market the chance to get at those jobs. We must tackle the barriers that stop people getting those jobs. In the case of parents, those barriers can be quite significant. If you are a single mum with two kids trying to afford childcare, to find work that fits around what you do and to get training and skills, then that is a challenge. Our work coaches can work with that mother, help her to get the skills she needs, to find childcare and to get help with that childcare, get her skilled up and get her out there. That shows the children what they can achieve in turn, and everybody benefits. He is absolutely right; this is the way forward.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Earl of Effingham Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. Since coming to this House 16 years ago, I have been fortunate in the ballot for one-year inquiries—in which we are often encouraged to recommend post-legislative scrutiny—to have successfully brought forward one-year inquiries into two pieces of legislation which I was fortunate enough to take through the House of Commons. The first was the Mental Capacity Act 2005; it was subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, but some years later there was still quite a lot that we had to recommend adjusting in it. Secondly, and most recently, last year there was the review of the Autism Act 2009—a very small Bill that might not have needed post-legislative scrutiny when it was passed.
I support the noble Lord. It is quite worrying that there is no structure to the way we identify Bills or any form of legislative commitment to this being carried out. This applies to both Houses, although the expertise in this House lends itself to post-legislative scrutiny and the time involved in doing it is probably more suited to this House than another place. I support him because, sometimes, when we legislate—I think most of us have had this experience—there is a tendency to think that, if we are not quite sure that it says what we mean, the courts will sort it out. That is a very sloppy and dangerous way of legislating, so I support the noble Lord in what he has said.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling the government amendment, which His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support. We also thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for his amendment. He has been described in the media as the United Kingdom’s greatest living expert on Parliament and a world authority on constitutional issues. He is entirely correct that post-legislative scrutiny is essential for any public Act, but it is especially important for Bills as substantial as this. By the conclusion of Report, we will have debated over 10 amendments seeking reviews of various aspects of the Bill, which surely highlights how wide ranging its impact is expected to be. An all-encompassing review would combine these amendments and, most importantly, allow the Government to evidence the positive change that they believe this Bill will put into effect. Some form of post-legislative scrutiny is the right vehicle, and the noble Lord’s amendment would serve as the foundation stone of that verification.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in group 3 concern a review of the Act on commencement. Amendment 205 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. I too recognise his continued dedication to this matter, echoing the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and his undoubted experience and expertise in this area. As my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern set out in Committee, I am pleased to reassure the noble Lord again that the department understands the importance of the legislative feedback loop, as he described it clearly then and again this afternoon, and is committed to that. However, we believe this amendment cuts across what is a perfectly clear set of cross-government expectations for post-legislative scrutiny.
The question he poses is: why did we not undertake pre-legislative scrutiny? The Government give consideration to which Bills will be published in draft, taking into account the overall requirements of the legislative programme and how to ensure that time is used as efficiently as possible. The Government did not consider the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill necessary for pre-legislative scrutiny, and therefore did not publish it in draft. We wrote to the Education Select Committee upon introduction of the Bill in the House of Commons and provided a briefing opportunity with officials before its Second Reading.
The noble Lord has previously raised issues in this House with the current process for such scrutiny. The process seeks to ensure that the chair of the Commons Select Committee has adequate information to decide whether to instigate a fuller inquiry, and we would expect to undertake that fuller inquiry given the importance of this Bill. However, as he will know, should they decide not to, that inquiry can be taken up by another interested parliamentary committee of either House.
In Committee, the noble Lord noted that the Government included post-legislative scrutiny in the Football Governance Act. I am not sure if others in the Chamber were subjected to the passage of the Football Governance Bill, but it was an interesting process. That was a single-issue Bill, so it was deemed appropriate for that Bill. However, that does not mean it is appropriate for all Bills, as I am sure noble Lords will be aware. This Bill covers a broad range of measures, with different timelines for implementation and different evaluation needs. I think we would all agree, for example, that the rollout of a single unique identifier is quite different from the rollout of breakfast clubs.
None the less, alongside our commitment to post-legislative scrutiny, we have committed to a post-implementation review as part of the Better Regulation Framework. We published our plans in the impact assessment for this Bill, on which the RPC rated us green, for how we will monitor and evaluate the transformative measures that will change the lives of millions of children and young people. I hope that noble Lords are reassured. I repeat that commitment now, for good measure: we will undertake post-legislative scrutiny for this Bill, but it is not needed to be included the Bill when it is already an expectation.
On government amendment 246, Clause 67 currently provides that
“any provision of or amendment made by Part 1 or 2, so far as it confers or relates to a power to make regulations or an order”,
will come into force on the day the Act is passed. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for his support for the amendment. It will clarify that, by order, we mean secondary legislation. The only instance of secondary legislation order in the Bill is Schedule 3, which amends the Education Act 2002 to provide that the Secretary of State may by order make provision requiring the remuneration of an academy teacher to be at least equal to the amount specified in or determined in accordance with the order. The amendment would ensure that it is clear what order the Bill is referring to.
I hope I have addressed the noble Lord’s concerns, and that he feels able to withdraw his amendment.