Schools: Mobile Phones

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure mobile phones are kept out of schools.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, mobile phones have no place in our schools. The Government’s Mobile Phones in Schools guidance is clear that schools should prohibit the use of devices with smart technology throughout the school day, including during lessons, transitions and breaks. We expect all schools to take steps in line with this guidance to ensure that mobile phones do not disrupt pupils’ learning. If pupils fail to follow those rules, schools have the power to confiscate devices.

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her optimistic Answer to my Question. I wonder how many noble Lords are at this very moment distracted by the smartphone that they have with them. I look around and I see quite a few. Imagine then what it must be like to be the teacher of a class of 11 year-olds and to try to hold their attention when they have their smartphones beside them.

The Minister has given an optimistic Answer and I had hoped for unanimity in this matter, because all the evidence, all the experts, agree, as I think the Minister has just agreed, that having a smartphone with them at all times causes harm, both educationally and socially, to children and young people. To bring about the change that is necessary, will the Minister show some leadership and agree to the amendment that my noble friends have submitted to the education Bill that is about to come to Parliament?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Well, my optimism is based not just on vain hope but, of course, on the most recent report from the Children’s Commissioner, which shows that the overwhelming majority of schools—99.8% of primary schools and 90% of secondary schools—already have policies in place that limit or restrict the use of mobile phones during the school day. There is ample opportunity, through both the guidance and the autonomy and wisdom of head teachers, to ensure that we make considerable progress on this issue, as we have already seen.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, school leaders, public health, Dan Tomlinson MP and the Smartphone Free Childhood campaign have come together in Barnet to become the first borough to ban smartphones in 103 primary schools, and 23 secondary schools are working towards removing smartphones entirely from the school day. This is ensuring that 63,000 students will enjoy a seven-hour window to learn, socialise and grow without a mobile phone. What assessment has my noble friend the Minister made of local initiatives such as this one in Barnet that we also find in areas such as Ealing and St Albans?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend identifies an important development, which is that, although schools can and do control the availability of mobile phones for children, children’s access to phones is much broader than that, and the support for children to be able to operate without their phones also needs a broader range of people than simply teachers and head teachers. That type of initiative demonstrates what is already happening under the current guidance. When people come together in that way to support each other, it is something to be recognised and on which they should be congratulated.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, as a teacher, I have never taught in a school that allowed mobile phones. The Minister said that mobile phones had no place in schools, while giving head teachers autonomy to make decisions. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is taking away autonomy from head teachers. Is it not time we just had a blanket ban on mobile phones?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises an interesting point about those who argue that autonomy for head teachers is important—which the Government support. By the way, I dispute his interpretation of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which we will have plenty of opportunity to discuss in more detail over the coming weeks. It is precisely those who make that charge who now want to remove that autonomy by saying that legislation is the only way to make progress.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I agree with what the Minister has said. One of the problems with mobile phones is to do with children’s mental health and well-being—and, of course, bullying. Mobile phones are often used to bully pupils. Does the Minister agree that it is important that governing bodies of schools, on which parents are represented, understand the issues and are able to discuss them and come to some conclusions?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point. I am sure that both the policies that schools are developing and have developed on mobile phone use, and the policies that they are required to have in place around bullying, for example, will benefit from well-informed governors, and input from parents and others on governing bodies, to make sure that they are effective and respond to some of the challenges that the use of mobile phone technology has brought.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister rightly cites some of the evidence in this area, but I think it is becoming overwhelming. The Children’s Commissioner is right about the number of schools that have policies in this area. The question is: are they effective? The evidence from Parentkind and Policy Exchange is that only 10% to 15% of schools have a really effective ban on phones. The department’s own evidence shows that 50% of GCSE classes are disrupted by the use of phones, and we are hearing increasing evidence from healthcare professionals about the impact on our children. The Minister rightly says that we on this side of the House uphold autonomy in our schools and academy trusts, but this is about a precautionary principle, and protecting our children. What is stopping the Minister from moving on it?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness identifies the need for all of us to continue thinking about the best practice for schools to ensure that their classrooms are mobile phone free, and that they are working on the best evidence. There is a whole range of ways in which schools are responding to this, and it would be good for them to look at the very best practice across schools that are taking action. However, I am afraid that the noble Baroness’s point was that this is difficult and nuanced, that people are doing it in different ways, and that we need detailed consideration of how to do it best. None of those things would be delivered by a—I hate, in this place, to call legislation crude, but none of them would be delivered simply by legislating for something that, as she identified, is more complex than that.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, sometimes technology can help to deal with social problems. As a Faraday cage blocks phone signals, it would be appropriate to install those cages in all classrooms and prevent pupils being distracted by mobile phones. Will the Minister experiment with this technology?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I think I am right in saying that some schools already use that technology, along with a range of other technologies, such as keeping mobile phones in special bags that prevent them being used. Schools are making progress on this in a whole range of ways. The noble Lord is right that technology can sometimes be the answer to problems caused by other forms of technology.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister recognise, however, that there may be reasonable exceptions to this, according to the particular circumstances of the student, which may or may not be temporary?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, and that is one of the reasons why there needs to be some flexibility. I think the noble Earl might be referring to children who, for particular reasons related to the distance they have to travel to school or perhaps to special needs that they have, might well need to have adjustments that can be provided for them by a mobile phone. Those are circumstances in which schools should be, and are, thinking about the particular ways in which they think about the ban, to ensure that all children can achieve and have the support that they need.

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, France has seen an improvement in school results and less bullying in schools since it introduced a national ban in 2018, seven years ago. Is it not time that we followed that example and had a national ban, as opposed to guidance?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

What both the previous Government and this Government have done amounts to rather more than simply guidance; there has been a very clear direction. But I am sure the noble Baroness will understand that the French education system is somewhat more directive than the British education system. If she and her party want us to go down that route, that is an interesting development—but I do not think that is what she and her party want to happen.

Pupil Absenteeism

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support teachers and schools to reduce pupil absenteeism.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, improving school attendance is a top priority for the Government. We are providing schools and teachers with world-leading data tools, empowering them to identify quickly children who are at risk of non-attendance and to put the right support in place. Our 31 attendance hubs have helped 2,000 schools to adopt best practice. Our new regional improvement for standards and excellence advisers will also work closely with schools to reduce absence.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

The Minister will know that the cohort of children who are severely absent—those who miss more than 50% of their classes—which amounts to about 120,000 pupils, are the most at risk of ending up in gang activity and other serious criminality. The previous Government did a good job on tackling this problem, but what assistance are the Government giving to individual schools to collate and use data on absence to develop a plan of action to tackle the most acute attendance problems?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that being absent from school, particularly persistently, not only impacts on your education but puts you in danger and makes you vulnerable to criminal activity in the way he outlined. That is why it is really important that we nip in the bud the attendance problems of those who start being absent before they are persistently absent. Through the Working Together guidance, we now expect that local authority teams will meet schools regularly to agree individual plans for severely absent children to get them back into school and to keep them out of trouble.

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

My Lords, the Institute for Government recently published a report, Reducing School Absence, which concludes that under the last Labour Government, absence rates for secondary school pupils fell by 42%. Its key recommendation is that the most effective way to tackle absence is to bring all parties together—adolescent health, special needs, school disengagement and family support. That is what the last Labour Government did under the Every Child Matters agenda. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that this is the best way to reduce absenteeism, which under the previous Government ballooned to 1.5 million pupils being persistently absent in 2023-24?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right that we have seen big increases in the number of children who are missing school, both those who are persistently absent and those who are severely absent, as I said in my earlier response. My noble friend is right that, particularly to deal with children who are severely absent, you need to bring together a range of properly resourced agencies to work on the individual plans I talked about in the previous answer. That is one of the reasons why we are investing £500 million in children’s social care and in prevention, so that we can ensure that severely absent children are routinely assessed for family help, bringing together those services in the way she outlined.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that children who fail at school, and who know they are failing, are far more likely to be absent? With that in mind, what are we doing about getting proper assessment to help those children, particularly those with special educational needs, without going through a long, expensive and slow identification process?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

For children with special educational needs, it is really important that, as we have discussed previously, those needs are identified early. That is why we have launched new SEND assessment resources and child development training for the early years sector. This Government’s ambition is that all children with special educational needs receive the right support to succeed in mainstream schools where possible. That is what we are focused on. It is what we are engaging with parents and professionals about. It is the change we will ensure so that children are much more likely to succeed and, as the noble Lord said, to stay in school and achieve, with all the benefits that brings for the rest of their lives.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, there is very good evidence that arts, music and sports programmes lead to improvements in school attendance and engagement, especially in at-risk populations. However, state schools have seen a huge reduction in creative subjects over the last 15 years. What plans do the Government have to increase arts and culture provision so that students in state schools have the same opportunities as those in independent schools? Will the Government encourage schools to join the Artsmark programme? Artsmark schools report huge improvements in attendance and engagement from children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right. The right curriculum, and the breadth of the enriching and enjoyable activities that happen within schools, are certainly important for keeping children there and helping them to learn. Ensuring that we have a curriculum that supports the space to enable those things to happen is one of the reasons why we have the curriculum and assessment review currently being undertaken. But we have not waited for that to provide additional investment—for example, for the national centre related to music—that will help to ensure that more children have the opportunities she talked about.

[Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)]

Is the Minister aware that many 13 and 14 year-olds who do not turn up on two days a week do not want to go back to a school where they will have to study just eight academic subjects, which is the standard curriculum for comprehensives? Until they have some injections of training and vocational subjects, absenteeism will remain high.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

This is why we need to make sure that the curriculum provides the excellence of subject teaching and knowledge necessary for children to progress in life, and also that it has the opportunity to provide the broad experience for learners that the noble Lord references. There are lots of good examples of schools that, while offering the whole national curriculum, nevertheless also manage to provide other alternatives: more enrichment and more opportunities to learn about the skills that will be necessary in the workplace. I am sure that makes school even more attractive to students.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure my noble friend will know that, in the last academic year, the number of those absent more than 50% of the time went up by a staggering two-thirds—so we have a genuine crisis. I know that my noble friend is too old—

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I mean that she is too young to remember the school bobby, who turned up at my parents’ house only to find that I had been sent away to a school for the blind. Is it not true that, in some circumstances, we really have to work with the parents, because they have a responsibility as well?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend—despite what he just said about me—is absolutely right. This is where that personalised plan around an individual child—using, where necessary, early help provision, family support and challenge to parents—is absolutely fundamental for those children, who have sometimes completely lost touch with what it means to attend school regularly and learn appropriately. They need that type of intervention—my noble friend is absolutely right.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The Government have done some excellent work on attendance, and the national roadshows that have been held with schools are to be welcomed. The numbers are improving, but they are not improving quickly for children on free school meals. What will the Government do about that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness knows, there is a differential impact on absenteeism, depending on whether a child has special educational needs or free school meals. So it is really important that, in using the improved data now available to us at a very granular level, we ensure that schools know what is effective in order to reduce absenteeism and, in particular—this was the reason for the roadshows that the noble Baroness identified—can compare themselves with others. Schools with similar intakes perform very differently in tackling absence, which is why we need to make sure that the data is used in a really granular way. To be fair to the noble Baroness, she started that in her time in the department.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham]

My Lords, as a foster carer for Nottingham city, I am aware that children with higher levels of often complex needs hugely benefit from additional support in smaller integrated learning environments in order to stay motivated and engaged. I press the Minister again very particularly: what assessment have the Government therefore made of how the increase in the number of children with significant special educational needs—who now very often remain in large classes, with the disruption that creates for many pupils—is impacting on pupil absenteeism?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate rightly pushes me. This is the reason why, as part of our approach to supporting children with special educational needs, we are keen to ensure that children receive the support they need to succeed where possible in mainstream schools—but that may well involve resourced units within those schools that will enable the smaller, more personalised provision that the right reverend Prelate is talking about. We have made additional capital available, as well as the £1 billion more of additional high needs funding to help to begin that work.

Sport: Supreme Court Ruling on Sex and Gender

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to hold meetings with the British Olympic Association and national governing bodies of sport, including the Football Association, to discuss the implications for British sport of the Supreme Court ruling on the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010.

[The Minister of State, Office for Equality and Opportunity (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is for each sport’s domestic national governing body to set their own policies for who can participate in domestic competitions. We have always been clear that, when it comes to women’s sport, biology matters. We will continue to support sports to develop policies that protect fairness and safety. Our sporting bodies also need to come up with approaches to ensure that everybody has the opportunity to take part in some capacity.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I proposed an amendment in 2004 to the then Gender Recognition Bill, which was agreed by your Lordships’ House and reflected in the Equality Act 2010, to exempt sports governing bodies from the legislation on the grounds of fair competition and the safety of competitors. Nevertheless, does the Minister agree that, given the widely differing interpretations within the world of sport, government advice on these two very sensitive but important issues, in collaboration with Sport England, would be definitely welcomed?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that the Equality Act has always enabled sporting bodies to make decisions on the basis of safety and fairness, which we wholly support, but there are also considerable differences between individual sports in terms of, for example, the age or level at which safety and fairness become really crucial elements. I am not sure that it is the role of government to intervene in the way he is suggesting, because the clarity from the Supreme Court ruling, interpreted in relation to each individual sport, is probably the appropriate way for governing bodies to go.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, far fewer women than men, at all levels, participate in sport, and Sport England made money available to parkrun to encourage young women to participate. Because of the way parkrun keeps its figures, it allows men to self-identify and to have their times put as if they were women’s times, which is terribly discouraging for women coming into the sport. Could the Government subtly have some discussions with Sport England? Maybe it would really be fair for women if their times could be kept just for born women.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am an enormous fan and participant in parkrun, which manages to provide enormous opportunities for running for both very talented runners and people like me. The noble Baroness makes an important point about everybody being able to identify their performance on the basis of a fair comparison. It is for parkrun to listen to that and to make the relevant decisions.

[Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware, as has already been alluded to, that the Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act have always allowed trans people to be excluded from sports, and the Supreme Court judgment has not changed that. The most complicated area for elite sport and international sport is around those who are not trans but for whom it is hard to determine whether they are a woman. The Supreme Court judgment defines biological sex as something that is assigned at birth. Does the Minister think that it is the role of the Government to re-examine what we mean by biological sex, to enable elite sport and international sport to make a more balanced judgment about who is allowed to compete in the category of woman?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Frankly, no, I do not think that it is the role of government to determine for international sporting bodies how they make those decisions in the very difficult circumstances that the noble Baroness identified.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, will the Government confirm that they will make sure that sports themselves—with medical help—make these decisions, and that they make their decisions based on, as the Minister already said, safety first and then fairness? They must make sure that everybody knows that, because confusion has been eating away at the structure of sport.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

That is what I just said in my previous answer. It is the responsibility of sports governing bodies to make decisions that are appropriate for their sports and that also deliver the safety and fairness that have always been at the heart of the legislation in this area. That is the most appropriate way forward.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, following on from the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt, we can all think of examples in international sport which are some of the most complex and do not relate to trans athletes’ participation but the methods used to determine whether someone is male or female. Will the Government be providing better clarity on this aspect for international sporting bodies?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that the controversy or difficulty comes through the methods that are used to determine sex or conditions for entry within those sports. I still think it is not the role of government or within the power of government to tell international sporting bodies what conditions and rules they should have in place for participation in those sports.

[Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, given that a lawful and meaningful consultation requires consultees to be afforded adequate time to respond, can my noble friend the Minister confirm how long the Government will consider adequate for the EHRC’s consultation, in the context of a highly complex area of law that has attracted a wide range of interpretations?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It is clear that this is both a difficult and sensitive area, not least because this is my third or fourth appearance at the Dispatch Box on it since the ruling. My noble friend refers particularly to the development of the code of practice by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which will be a very important way of ensuring that providers of services—less so, I have to say, for sports governing bodies—have more clarity about the application of the Supreme Court ruling. It is clearly important that there is sufficient time for people both to consider the implications of that and to make representations. I hope and believe that it is the intention of the Equality and Human Rights Commission that people have the chance to make those representations over a suitable period of time.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, in light of the Supreme Court judgment, as well as the FA’s change of policy, will the Minister take this opportunity to invite—not tell—the FA to apologise to those women whom it has penalised for objecting to the participation of biological males in women’s football. I am thinking in particular of the teenage girl who received a six-match ban from Lancashire FA for asking a bearded opponent she was about to play against on a ladies team whether he was a man.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As I have said previously, the Supreme Court judgment provides us with some clarity around the definition of sex within the Equality Act on the basis of biological sex. The priority now is for all of us to go forward, through the Equality and Human Right Commission’s code of practice and through the way we deal with this issue, not in a spirit of looking backwards or recrimination but in a way that enables us to ensure that this judgment is properly administered and represented in the changes that are made and to ensure that everybody in this quite sensitive area is treated with decency and respect. Looking forward is important now.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, could the Minister tell us what action the Government are taking in other sectors to ensure the prompt implementation of the Supreme Court’s clear confirmation that sex in the Equality Act must mean biological sex, not gender identity? For instance, in policing, the National Police Chiefs’ Council says

“we will not rush our response”,

which means in practice, police officers will still be allowed, or required, to strip search members of the public of the opposite sex to themselves. This does not require lots of practicality about implementation; this can change from one day to the next.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Baroness is right that a whole range of different organisations are currently considering their practice. The Supreme Court ruling brings clarity about the definition of sex, and it is on that basis that a whole range of organisations, including the police, should be considering what changes are necessary.

Antisemitism on University Campuses

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Cryer for securing this important debate and, in so doing, bringing the attention of this House back to the critical issue of antisemitism on university campuses. As others have referenced, the Community Security Trust report, Campus Antisemitism in Britain 2022-2024, published at the end of last year, sets out the scale of this issue within higher education. Let me say very clearly that this Government utterly condemn antisemitism in the strongest possible terms. More importantly, we are actively taking steps to prevent and tackle it at university, as in all parts of society.

In setting the context for that work, it is right that I take this opportunity, as others have in this debate, to recognise the organisations that play such a crucial role in supporting our Jewish students across the country. The Community Security Trust, providing essential security advice, monitors antisemitic incidents and collaborates with universities to ensure a safe campus environment. Its invaluable, if shocking and disturbing, data helps us understand the evolving picture of antisemitism as it affects not only students at university but Jewish communities up and down the country and across the world.

As several noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, made clear, the context in which we speak of antisemitism on university campuses is one of antisemitism more broadly across our communities. That is why the £72 million made available over the coming years to the Community Security Trust—as it has been in recent years, including when I was home Secretary—is an important contribution to the vital work that CST does in safeguarding our community sites.

As others have done, I pay tribute to the Union of Jewish Students for tirelessly advocating for Jewish students’ interests and ensuring that their voices are heard. My noble friend Lord Mann rightly focused on its enormous contribution. Although I am slightly older in my period of student politics, I understand and remember the enormous significance of the UJS. I am sure that it is ably supported not only by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, but by my noble friend Lady Berger, who, more than many people in this Chamber, understands the personal impact of antisemitic abuse.

The University Jewish Chaplaincy, which I was able to meet at a reception in Portcullis House, also offers spiritual guidance, pastoral care and a sense of community, providing essential well-being support.

Many noble Lords have referenced the StandWithUs report today. I was fortunate to be able to attend the event organised by my noble friend Lord Turnberg and hear directly the testimony from those students. It was both shocking and affecting, reflected as it is today in this report.

I was fortunate to be able to join the Friday night dinner of the Birmingham University Jewish Society. Its members told me that it was the largest in the country, where, as my noble friend Lady Berger outlined, there is an emphasis on Jewish life as much as there is on Jewish strife. I welcomed and enjoyed their hospitality and education. Interestingly, that was an interfaith night, in which they had successfully brought together students from across the university.

There can be no doubt that the terrorist attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023 acted as a catalyst for an unprecedented increase in appalling antisemitic incidents on campuses. Those incidents, including calls for violence against Jewish people and Holocaust denial, are utterly unacceptable and must be addressed decisively. We are committed to ensuring that universities take concerted action to prevent and tackle antisemitism and all other forms of harassment. As noble Lords have emphasised, that action needs to be led from the very top of our universities.

To emphasise the significance of that, the Office for Students introduced a new registration condition in July 2024 that will come into force on 1 August this year. The new condition is designed to trigger a cultural shift in attitudes and behaviours across the higher education sector. It will establish, among other things, regulatory requirements around training, reporting mechanisms and the provision of support. I was taken by the testimony that I heard from students that they felt that there was no appropriate mechanism to report their concerns, and suitable action was not taken by the leadership of their universities. This condition will require universities to develop the capability and resource capacity to implement the provisions, and the OfS will be able to take action against providers where there is or has been a breach of the condition, including, as several noble Lords have asked for, the ability to fine universities where they fail to take this issue seriously.

I should highlight, as others have done, the £7 million that the Government have allocated to tackling antisemitism in education. Of that amount, £500,000 has already been awarded to the University Jewish Chaplaincy to support student welfare on university campuses.

On the work in higher education, increasing the confidence and capability of university staff to recognise and tackle antisemitism is, as we know, critical to improving the experience of Jewish students on campus. That is why a key part of the tackling antisemitism in education procurement is focused on finding suppliers to deliver training and resources for key university staff, including campus security and student union staff. Training will also support staff in facilitating difficult discussions and tolerant debate between students on the Israel-Palestine conflict, as well as tools to support students in spotting and challenging mis- and disinformation, such as antisemitic conspiracy theories.

In addition, we are launching an innovation fund, providing opportunities for more creative methods to tackle antisemitism in universities, schools and colleges. This could include, for example, opportunities to strengthen students’ critical thinking and media literacy skills, as well as student-facing workshops on tolerant debate and interfaith collaboration to tackle antisemitism. I understand the impatience of noble Lords. An announcement regarding the outcome of the procurement and the launch of the innovation fund will be made as soon as possible.

On the issue of handling encampments, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, and others, I know that noble Lords have expressed concern about encampments. I wholly understand the chilling and frightening impact on Jewish students of the way in which those encampments developed on campuses. So far this academic year, relatively few encampments have been established. I believe that universities have learned from last year’s experiences how to de-escalate tensions where possible and, where that does not work, to take formal measures to resolve the situation. A number of universities, including Birmingham and Nottingham, took legal action to remove unauthorised encampments that were causing major disruption to teaching and learning. I think that was important, and their learning was important for other universities. Nevertheless, we remain vigilant, and are particularly keen to ensure that any future protests do not disrupt student life and cause fear and concern in the way that happened in places last year.

Several noble Lords raised the issue of free speech. Let me be clear: higher education must be a space for robust discussion, intellectual rigour and exposure to new ideas, but that in no way can excuse a failure to act on antisemitism. It was with respect to some elements of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, particularly in relation to the tort, where concern was expressed to us, including by Jewish students, that the impact might be to enable or to lead some higher education providers unduly to prioritise protecting speech that is hateful or degrading over the interests of those who are at risk of being harassed and intimidated. That was part of the reason why we paused the Act. I think the new way in which we are now delivering that Act will help to alleviate some of those issues.

Let me be clear that Holocaust denial, while not unlawful, is, nevertheless, not protected speech. I would most certainly not expect to see anybody expressing Holocaust denial having a place on our campuses. The Act does not protect unlawful speech, including some of the horrifying harassment, discrimination and antisemitic abuse we have seen on campus.

On Hamas, of course Hamas is a terrorist organisation. Support for it is criminal, and action should be taken where that occurs.

On Holocaust education, a point raised by my noble friend Lord Cryer, the Holocaust is the only historic event that is compulsory in the current national curriculum for history at key stage 3. It will remain a compulsory topic in the reformed national curriculum. We support it by funding teachers’ professional development. We made an additional £2 million available, committed in the 2024 Autumn Budget, for Holocaust remembrance and education.

On the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition, the Government are unequivocal in their backing of that definition of antisemitism.

Finally, in closing this debate, I think it important to recognise the efforts that have been made to foster cohesion on campuses across the country, including by university vice-chancellors and their staff, working closely with Jewish societies and the Union of Jewish Students. But, of course, there is more to do and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education is looking forward to hosting a round table with leading vice-chancellors to discuss what more can be done, collectively and at institutional level, to make this happen. We will continue to work closely with and to challenge university authorities and others to ensure that we create a campus culture that upholds the values of tolerance and respect for all.

For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers: Interim Update

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Levitt]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Interim Update on the practical implications of the UK Supreme Court judgment in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers, issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) on 25 April; and whether the EHRC consulted the Government before issuing that Interim Update.

[The Minister of State, Office for Equality and Opportunity (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government did not receive advance sight or notice of this interim update from the EHRC. The Government had requested a meeting with the chair to discuss its approach to developing an updated statutory code of practice, which will reflect the implications of the ruling and support service providers. This meeting will take place soon. The EHRC will consult relevant parties on its revised code, and we expect it to do so widely and broadly, listening to diverse voices. We will then consider the EHRC’s updated draft code once it has submitted it.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. I speak today primarily as a lawyer but also as the parent of a trans child, in the belief that these matters should and can be discussed in a non-partisan way, with respect and care for the rights of all involved. Does my noble friend agree that it would be wise of the EHRC to consult the Attorney-General about its intended revised legal guidance, given that the update issued last Friday evening contained legal inaccuracies that have caused consternation to real people living real lives?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The approach that my noble friend set out is precisely the one I outlined last week in responding to the statement. The Government have set out our expectation that service providers follow the clarity that the ruling provides. The EHRC’s interim update provides a perspective on how the judgment and Equality Act are practically applied in some areas; it is a snapshot reflection, rather than full guidance. The EHRC has announced that it will update its code of practice and has committed to seeking views from affected stakeholders; I am sure that it will consult widely on this. I add that the application of the Supreme Court ruling to different services and settings is complex. It requires careful work to ensure that we provide clarity for a wide range of varied service providers of different kinds and sizes so that they have confidence in how they apply the Equality Act on a day-to-day basis.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the EHRC. I hope I might be able to illuminate to the House what happened. I appreciate the Minister’s response. Does she agree with section 2.2 of the framework document that we have with the Government that the ECHR does not

“perform its functions on behalf of Government, and it is to operate independently of the Government”?

Moreover, she has to ensure

“that the Commission is under as few constraints as reasonably possible in determining its activities, timetables, and priorities”.

Having listened to her response, I know that she will agree with me that our priority is to explain the law to the public, which we have done in the interim statement, and to undertake a consultation on the practical implications of the judgment. We will seek views from as many affected stakeholders as we possibly can. This is profoundly important for the trans community. It is right that we published a brief statement of the law, and we will consult extensively as we go forward.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that the EHRC is the Government’s independent regulator of the Equality Act in this case. I welcome her commitment to both producing the statutory code of practice and the consultation to which she alluded.

[Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)]

My Lords, the advance of equality for lesbian and gay people over the course of the last half century has largely become settled because it was achieved without diminishing the rights of others. But, in seeking protections for transgender people, there is often a perceived or actual clash with the rights of others—namely, women—and therein lie the difficulties we are discussing. In helping us to navigate these issues, would there be merit in an overall independent review of these matters, as I proposed three years ago? At the moment, we have piecemeal approach, with a Supreme Court decision, EHRC rulings, the Cass review, other governmental decisions and, in all this, a culture war being fought that is immensely damaging to the individuals concerned. Is it not time to look at these issues dispassionately and carefully, to detoxify the debate and put the interests of all those concerned on the right footing?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The Supreme Court did look at the issues dispassionately, but the point is that there is now the requirement to consider the implications of the judgment and to do so in a way that provides assurance to service providers and others. That is the role of the code of practice and the EHRC, in the way that I have just outlined. I agree with the noble Lord—let us be clear that the Supreme Court was clear about this as well—that this not about winners and losers; it is about ensuring that there is both clarity in the law and broad respect for the rights of all people in this country. As the Supreme Court made clear, there is nothing in the ruling that undermines the protections for trans people put into Labour’s Equality Act in 2010.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I accept the Supreme Court’s judgment, but the need for the interim statement illustrates to me the extent of the anxiety, confusion and disruption surrounding how the ruling will be interpreted. While the guidance is only interim, it shows that there are still a lot of unanswered questions about how this will work in practice. Will the Government please take a lead, calm the situation and begin to work cross-party to find a way forward that allows everyone to feel safe and protected by the Equality Act?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I hope that in the Government’s response we have been calm; we have been clear but calm. We are committed to ensuring that all groups feel supported by the actions we take as a Government. The responsibility for laying down the code of practice rests with the EHRC. I am sure that it will have heard the noble Baroness’s call and, as we have already heard, it is committed to making sure that that code is developed on the basis of wide consultation.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I endorse the comments of my noble friend. Before statutory guidance is issued, how will the Government meet their legal obligations across all public services, in compliance with the judgment?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

In terms of the clarity of the judgment, as we discussed last week in response to the statement, work is already going on across the health service and other parts of government service. But, as with other judgments, the important clarity around some of the complexities in the application of this judgment will be provided through the statutory code that the EHRC is producing. I look forward to that.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, notwithstanding what the chair of the EHRC has just said to the House, it is quite clear from businesses, the hospitality industry and, today, the Football Association, that its interim guidance has created huge confusion, so I would like my noble friend the Minister to confirm for the House that the EHRC interim update is just an update: it is not legally binding. Can that please be made clear by the EHRC?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I think I have been clear to this House, both today and last week, that the statutory code of practice that the EHRC is responsible for producing will be the legal basis on which there will be interpretation of the judgment. I welcome the noble Baroness the chair of the EHRC’s commitment to ensuring that there will be wide consultation on that.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the EHRC has come under the most extraordinary and ill-informed abuse, as has its chair, personally. What more do the Government believe they can do to ensure that the independence and functions of the EHRC are properly understood?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I hope that I have demonstrated today that the Government does properly understand them. As I said last week, it is important that this whole debate is carried out in a spirit of understanding the complexities of the application of some of these provisions and recognition that all groups need to be able to access services, but with welcome clarity on the areas covered by the Supreme Court judgment.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Relevant document: 21st Report of the Delegated Powers Committee. Welsh Legislative Consent sought.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, while I might have felt offended by the exodus of so many people at the end of Oral Questions, I am reassured by the large number of people who want to contribute to this debate today. It is an honour to move the Second Reading of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, for there are few topics that unite Members of both Houses more deeply than the well-being of children. The numbers of contributors demonstrate that today.

This Bill has been ably steered through the other House by my ministerial colleagues, and I want to acknowledge those across political parties and from key external organisations who have spoken so passionately and sensitively in support of child safeguarding and ensuring that every child has the opportunity to thrive. Their voices have been invaluable in shaping this debate, and their commitment to protecting children’s present and future is deeply appreciated. I am also particularly pleased to be working alongside my noble friend Lady Blake, whose expertise and dedication in social care and education is invaluable. I am grateful for her support as we take this Bill forward together in this House.

This Bill represents an enormously important opportunity to improve our children’s social care and school systems. The chance to make meaningful change to the lives of children and families through legislation of this kind is rare, and I look forward to the thoughtful, impactful debate ahead. It also delivers on manifesto commitments to drive high and rising standards in our schools, ensuring that every child has the opportunity to achieve and to thrive.

I know that all Members of this House share the fundamental belief that our children deserve more, but, currently, children’s life chances are limited by systemic obstacles. Children at risk of abuse are falling through the cracks of our safeguarding systems. At the same time, while the best schools and trusts have shown how collaboration, strong leadership and innovation can transform education, many schools are still held back by a system that simply does not work well enough.

The Bill will strengthen protections for vulnerable children and ensure that those in care have the security and stability they need to thrive. But it also goes beyond these essential safeguarding reforms and ensures that opportunity is encouraged in every school. Every child deserves access to excellent teaching and a school system that gives them the foundations to succeed, no matter where they live or their circumstances. The Bill sets out a comprehensive package of support to advance significant improvements across the education and care systems, encouraging innovation and excellence, while ensuring fair and accountable systems that work for every child.

For too many children today, their background has a decisive negative impact on the life they are able to build. Ensuring that every child starts their school day nourished, focused and ready to learn is fundamental to our commitment to breaking down barriers to success. That is why this Bill delivers on the manifesto pledge to place a duty on every state-funded primary school to introduce free breakfast, making them accessible to all children, regardless of background.

Breakfast clubs have proven benefits: they boost attendance, improve academic attainment and enhance children’s social and emotional well-being. However, access remains fragmented; despite the good work of the national school breakfast programme, it reaches only around 2,000 primary schools, covering only a fraction of those in need, and funds only 75% of the cost of food and delivery, leaving schools to cover staff wages and other expenses. This Bill goes further than simply expanding the existing programme; it makes a fundamental shift in how we support children’s education and well-being.

From April, 750 schools across all nine regions, including 45 special schools, have led the way in free, daily breakfast clubs, saving parents up to £450 a year. Early adopters will be part of a test-and-learn phase to strengthen delivery of national rollout. We will learn what works and develop the programme, and this Bill will ensure that the opportunities provided by free, universal breakfast clubs reach all primary children.

In a country where 3.5 million children are growing up in absolute poverty, we must ensure that no child’s future is determined by their family’s financial circumstances. And breaking down barriers to opportunity goes beyond just the classroom. This Bill will also help by limiting the number of branded items of school uniform and PE kit that schools can require, reducing unnecessary costs and putting money back in parents’ pockets.

Our responsibility is greatest to those children who most need our protection and safeguarding. We must learn from the tragic cases of children failed by the system, so this Bill delivers on important recommendations from significant recent reviews, including the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, the child protection review published by the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel and a study into children’s social care placements published by the Competition and Markets Authority. Our measures are also informed by evidence from effective local practice.

Our priority is to keep children and families together wherever it is safe to do so. By helping more families to stay together, we can improve outcomes for children and reduce the number of children who need to enter the care system. This Bill strengthens early support, ensuring that those at risk of family breakdown can create a plan that prioritises their child’s needs. It places a duty on local authorities to offer a family group decision-making meeting before an application for a care or supervision order is made, potentially preventing many children from going into care and instead allowing them to remain safely with their families.

To support more children staying with relatives, friends or other connected persons, this Bill will require all local authorities to publish a kinship local offer. Every child deserves a stable, loving and permanent home, and this Bill takes meaningful steps to make that a reality. To strengthen safeguarding, we are placing a duty on safeguarding partners to fully include education and childcare settings in their arrangements, ensuring no opportunity to protect children is missed. We are also requiring local safeguarding partners to establish multi-agency child protection teams in every area to take decisive action when necessary.

For too long, poor information sharing has contributed to serious child safeguarding incidents, including in reviews following the death of, or serious injury to, a child. To ensure that no child goes unseen or unsupported, the Bill sets the foundation for the introduction of a unique identifier for children and strengthens the regulatory regime in place for independent educational institutions. Parents have the right to have their wishes regarding their child’s education respected, but that education must be suitable and that child must be safe. The Bill stablishes mandatory registers for children not in school full-time, so that we know where children are and that their education is safe and suitable.

When care is necessary, it must work for children and not for profit. In 2022, the Competition and Markets Authority and the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care found that levels of profit in the care placement market were well above those that would be expected in a well-functioning market. To prevent children’s social care placement providers from profiting at the expense of vulnerable children, we are introducing a new power to enable the Secretary of State to cap profits if profiteering is not brought under control through our other interventions. Because care does not end at 18, we will require all local authorities to provide eligible care leavers with “staying close” support where their welfare requires it, ensuring that young people leaving care have stability and the right help to build a bright future.

Every child is entitled to a high-quality state education. While there has been progress over the years, our system is simply not working well enough for everybody. Standards vary widely, with a stark contrast between the experiences of children in the best and worst schools. The gap in average key stage 4 attainment between the best-performing and worst-performing schools is now equivalent to more than two GCSE grades per subject. Too many schools are stuck—trapped in cycles of underperformance without the capacity or momentum to improve—and children with additional needs are not getting the support they need. The attainment gap for disadvantaged children at key stage 2 and key stage 4 has remained persistently high and has yet to return to pre-pandemic levels. There are large and persistent attainment gaps at all stages of education; currently, 39% of children are not meeting expected standards in all of reading, writing and maths as they leave primary school.

Further, we have an absence crisis, with approximately one in five children missing a day of school each fortnight. That needs to change. High and rising standards in every classroom must be the right of every child, delivered through a broad, high-quality curriculum taught by skilled and dedicated teachers. That is why we have established the independent, expert-led curriculum and assessment review, which will deliver a broad, rich and innovative curriculum to ensure that all children and young people have the essential knowledge and skills to set them up for work and life. Teaching quality is the most important in-school determinant of pupil outcomes. That is why this Government are committed to recruiting 6,500 new expert teachers across our mainstream secondary and specialist schools, and our colleges, over the course of this Parliament.

This Bill is a charter of common sense, providing a core guarantee of quality education in every school, no matter where you live. The Bill will establish a pay floor by requiring all schools to adhere to a minimum pay level. This will help ensure a competitive pay structure, supporting the recruitment and retention of the best educators. Additionally, academy trusts will be required to consider the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document when setting staff conditions, further promoting fairness and consistency across the education system.

The Bill will ensure that when the national curriculum is reformed, it will be an entitlement for all children in all schools, and that new teachers either have or are working towards qualified teacher status, followed by a period of statutory induction. To provide greater certainty for families, the Bill strengthens collaboration between schools and local authorities on admissions and place planning.

It also introduces more flexibility in how we support struggling schools. When academies were introduced—by the last Labour Government—they were the disruptors in the system, challenging and supporting the schools that most needed it to improve. Now they are the system: over 80% of our secondary schools are academies. We need new challenge, new urgency and new tools to drive improvement where schools just are not doing well enough for our children.

That is why this Bill enables a range of interventions to address underperformance. While academisation will remain a key tool for tackling failing schools, the Bill gives the Government more discretion to apply the most appropriate solutions to individual cases, including supporting the deployment of our RISE teams. These teams are made up of proven leaders with a track record of improving schools and delivering for children. As we announced on Tuesday, an additional 45 advisers joined last month, tripling the total number to 65. This will enable us to expand our reach from an initial 32 schools to more than 200, reaching over 120,000 children and putting us on track to engage with up to 600 schools by March 2026. Through these reforms, we aim to ensure that every child can attend a high-quality local school and receive the education they deserve.

This Bill makes vital, practical changes to our children’s social care and education systems, and there will be tangible improvements for every young person as a result. This Government have been clear in setting out their mission to ensure that a child’s future should not be determined by their circumstances. I know that this principle is widely shared across the House. By addressing the systemic barriers that too often hold our children back, we have a unique opportunity through this Bill to create a more equitable and successful environment, where all young people have the chance to achieve and thrive. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a long, interesting and well-informed debate. Given the number of noble Lords who contributed, I will do my best to cover the key issues, but I will not necessarily be able to name-check all those who raised them. I welcome the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, who told us about his journey to Sheffield, education and youth work. I am sure that that will be important for our debates in this House, and we are all very glad that he got in safely. I also recognise the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Biggar. He will bring his historical perspective—as he has done today—his free thinking and his challenge to this House, and I look forward to future debates and engagement with him.

The discussion we have had today has been both thoughtful and well informed, reflecting the depth of expertise in this House. It is also clear that there is a shared commitment among Peers to work collaboratively in improving our children’s social care and education systems. The Bill makes a significant contribution to this Government’s mission to dismantle barriers to opportunity. Reforming children’s social care and education systems is a key part of this mission, ensuring that hundreds of thousands of children have the start in life they deserve.

By shifting the system’s focus towards early support that helps keep families together, we are breaking down the barriers that prevent children from thriving. Alongside and united with this, the Bill introduces measures to drive high and rising standards in education, ensuring every child has access to excellent teaching, strong leadership and a high-quality curriculum. We are committed to building a system that removes the obstacles to learning that hold too many children back, with all reforms underpinned by clear and robust accountability. The Bill includes many measures to keep children safe and prioritise their well-being, and I am glad that they have been widely welcomed across the House.

Turning to the specific points made today, I will start with the debate we have had on how we can ensure our schools are delivering for our children. The most compelling arguments have come from those arguing passionately for the urgent need to ensure that all children have the education they need and deserve. This is at the heart of this Government’s opportunity mission. Too many children are still held back by where they live or the school that they attend.

Let me be very clear, as this Government have been, that this Government back academies. We agree that high-quality trusts have been critical in driving school improvement over the last two decades. We want to build on this success and we want high-quality academy trusts to grow. As of March, we are supporting almost 700 schools through voluntarily converting to academy status. This is a higher number than under the previous Government, at any point since at least 2018.

However, the system is not working well enough for all, and significant issues persist in areas such as attainment and attendance, as several noble Lords have identified. While the best trusts have spread innovation and excellence across the system, academisation is not always the answer. Even when it is, on too many occasions it has been too slow.

The least compelling arguments came from those more concerned about a defence of structures and the status quo, which we have heard from some opposite. I have to say that some of what we have heard from those opposite smacks of complacency, not of consensus. The true consensus is among those who know that tackling underperformance needs urgency, innovation and a range of tools. As for some of the comments made about the RISE teams that are starting work, I am not sure that noble Lords in this place want to be referring to successful school leaders as “clipboard-carrying bureaucrats”, as some have.

Among the things that many noble Lords have identified as key to improving standards, the first is the issue of the national curriculum. It is not true that maintained schools are unable to innovate while following the national curriculum. As my noble friend Lord Knight identified, many academies follow the national curriculum and innovate well. There is flexibility to tailor the content and delivery of the curriculum to meet the needs of pupils and to take account of new developments, societal changes, or local and topical issues. A requirement to teach the national curriculum provides a floor but no ceiling. It does not force schools to teach in a particular way or prevent them adapting or innovating, and it does not stop them adding extra content in the best interests of their pupils.

However, there is more to do in ensuring that young people are prepared for life and that there is space for creativity, arts, drama and sport, as we have heard, as well as vocational subjects. That is the reason why this Government set up the curriculum and assessment review, precisely to deliver a curriculum that will ensure that those things are possible—the floor for innovation that I identified.

Several noble Lords talked about the specific case of university technical colleges. UTCs and studio schools offer a distinctive curriculum which specialises in technical and vocational education. Pupils make an active decision, alongside their parents, to attend these schools for that distinct curriculum. In choosing to go to such a school, they indicate that they do not want to study the full breadth of the national curriculum. As such, the requirements to follow the full national curriculum will not apply to UTCs and studio schools. The details of the exemption will be discussed with UTCs and studio schools, and the regulations will be laid before Parliament in due course. That is what happens when the power of my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Lord, Lord Baker—the founder of the national curriculum and UTCs—combine.

Innovation needs great teaching, as many noble Lords have identified. High-quality teaching is the most important in-school factor to a child’s educational outcomes. That is why this Government have made good early progress to deliver towards our key pledge to recruit 6,500 new expert teachers.

We agreed a 5.5% pay award for teachers this year. We are increasing teacher trainee bursaries, with a focus on shortage subjects. We have doubled retention payments from this year. To support these initiatives, we have expanded our schoolteacher recruitment campaign. We have already seen a 6% increase in new entrants to initial teacher training compared with last year—reversing a trend of year-on-year decreases since the pandemic period. We have already made changes on some of the concerns expressed around pay. We are clear that the provisions in the Bill provide a floor for the pay that teachers in all schools, including academies, should receive—but no ceiling.

There are existing exemptions to the requirement for QTS, which allow schools the flexibility to recruit subject experts and then support them to gain QTS through an employment-based route. It is of course possible to bring technical experts and others into schools to provide contributions to teaching. We value the knowledge and passion that such people can bring to schools, but great teaching goes beyond subject knowledge. For mainstream teaching, we need teachers who understand age-specific approaches, how to adapt teaching to the needs of children and how to ensure effective behaviour management approaches. That is why it is right for all schools that teaching is done by qualified teachers. We will update the regulations to clarify that teachers will have three terms to secure a place on an appropriate route to qualified teacher status, so that schools’ recruitment processes for teachers of any subject are not held up.

On the points made about Clause 49, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, I have to disagree. This is not the constitutional innovation or outrage that noble Lords opposite have suggested. The Secretary of State already has a direction-making power over maintained schools and, from this Bill, will have similar powers over academies. I hope that in Committee we will get more of a chance to talk about the reality of what that will mean.

The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, suggested that there is not support for our provisions. We are clear that the measures in the Bill are the right response to the challenges of today and tomorrow. The Secretary of State for Education has engaged extensively with representatives of the trust sector over recent months. In addition to welcoming the changes we have made to the Bill on pay and conditions, the Confederation of School Trusts in its updated briefing is reassured by our approach to the national curriculum and welcomes the interim report of the curriculum and assessment review. CST is also reassured by our approach to the combination of the Bill’s provisions for QTS and regulation for setting out exemptions. On pupil admission numbers and new schools, CST endorses the need for a framework that works for children and believes that this can be achieved through regulations and statutory guidance.

I am glad to hear the welcome for breakfast clubs, and in Committee we will get into some of the detail around those. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, that there are already 750 early adopters of free breakfast clubs. We will learn from them about how to roll out the scheme with the appropriate design and funding to ensure it is available to all pupils.

I will move on to some of the other measures that noble Lords have raised. On home education, all children have the right to a safe and suitable education, whether they are educated at school or otherwise. We know that many home-educating parents make the difficult decision to home-educate for legitimate reasons and work hard to ensure that their children receive an education that enables them to achieve and thrive. Sadly, that is not the case for all children. Some are receiving very little or no education and some may even be at risk of harm or exploitation.

This Bill includes measures that make children not in school more visible, and better enables local authorities to take action where needed. I want to reassure home-educating parents that these measures will not infringe on the right to choose to home-educate for the vast majority, neither will the content of home education be scrutinised any more than is the case now.

In relation to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, the Bill does not allow local authorities to demand access to homes; they may ask for that. In Committee, we will be able to look in more detail at the provisions around what information needs to be provided by home-educators, and I hope that we can reassure people on that.

Several noble Lords raised the issue of special educational needs and disability. Not everything that this Government are doing in this enormously important area is contained within this legislation, but, when it comes to special educational needs and disability—which, as many noble Lords, have said, is a lose-lose situation for too many children and parents at the moment—we are committed to improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools, as well as to ensuring that special schools cater to those with the most complex needs, restoring parents’ trust that their child will get the support they need.

We have made a clear commitment to address the challenges in the SEND system as part of supporting all children to achieve and thrive. We are currently considering SEND reforms through extensive engagement—including detailed work in partnership with expert groups, local authorities, health authorities, schools and parents—that will look at the fundamentals of the system. We are taking action now to improve the system wherever we possibly can, bringing together learning from the safety valve programme, the delivering better value programme and the change programme. We are working with local authorities and schools to ensure that the £1 billion for high needs announced at the Autumn Budget is a precursor to reform and change.

Other noble Lords talked about the emphasis on early years and a child’s best start in life. Through our plan for change, this Government will give children growing up in our country the best start in life. Delivering that plan will require strengthening and joining up family services, to improve support through pregnancy and early childhood. This includes continuing to invest in and build up the family hubs and Start for Life programme. Through that, 75 of the most deprived local authorities in England have received funding to set up family hubs, with integrated Start for Life services at their core. Joining up services through family hubs provides a welcoming front door to vital support to improve the health, education and well-being of babies, children, young people and their families, and the support for parents that several noble Lords have rightly mentioned.

We are already investing in that. At the October 2024 Budget, the Government confirmed £69 million to continue the delivery of family hubs in this financial year, and the Department of Health and Social Care announced £57 million of continued funding for Start for Life services. We are investing over £500 million in 2025-26 in the Families First Partnership programme, through which we are rolling out reforms to family help, multi-agency child protection and family group decision-making. The aim of the programme is to rebalance the children’s social care system towards earlier intervention.

Several noble Lords mentioned the issue of young people not in education, employment or training, where we are determined to break down barriers to opportunity for all our young people. It is unacceptable that almost one in seven 16 to 24 year-olds in England and the UK are not in education, employment or training. That is too high; the consequences are too serious. Bringing down this number is a complex and long-standing challenge, but we are taking the action needed to tackle it. That is why we have committed to the establishment of a youth guarantee, to support access to training and apprenticeships, or support to find work for all 18 to 21 year-olds, and why we are offering two weeks of work experience for every young person and better careers advice in schools.

Several noble Lords have said that, while there are many good elements in the Bill, there is no mention of foster care. That is not an indication that this Government are not prioritising it. All of our market reforms apply to fostering services. Fostering not being included in the Bill does not mean that we are not taking forward reforms, as demonstrated by our investment in recruitment and retention.

As part of the Chancellor’s transformation fund announced in the Spring Statement, we will provide an additional £25 million over two years for foster care, which will form part of children’s social care reform. We expect that to fund the recruitment of additional fostering families, provide better peer-to-peer support for foster carers and ensure that more children in care have stability. Beyond that, we are working closely with the sector to look at how we can improve foster care further and talking to our fostering advisory board about those issues.

On the issue of information sharing and the single unique identifier, although current legislation already allows professionals to share information, we have heard that many practitioners only feel confident to do this when there is a serious child protection concern. Of course, that reluctance can lead to fragmented information across agencies, where no single professional has the full picture needed to spot emerging risks. The new duty in this Bill provides a clear legal basis to share relevant information earlier and more confidently.

Alongside that, the consistent identifier, which several noble Lords have talked about, will be used only for the specific purposes set out in the Bill. The work we are doing on that as part of the pilot will ensure that we design that appropriately to fulfil some of the requirements, demands and concerns put forward by noble Lords.

I hear those noble Lords who talked about well-being measurement. The Government support schools measuring well-being—many already do. We are looking at how to support schools to measure components of thriving, such as well-being, most effectively to support attendance, attainment and other national priorities with our opportunity mission. I would be very happy to talk further to noble Lords who are interested in that.

I feel sure that we will discuss issues around smacking in Committee. This Government are absolutely clear that no child should be subjected to violence or abuse.

We are pressing ahead. We are prioritising the well-being of children in the Bill. There will be many issues that we will discuss in detail in Committee. I am glad there has been a consensus across this House about the significance of the work that we do with respect to children. This Government have made a good start in doing that. This legislation is designed to develop that even further, and I look forward to discussing it further with noble Lords. I beg to move.

Bill read a second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 21, Schedule 1, Clauses 22 to 35, Schedule 2, Clauses 36 to 51, Schedule 3, Clauses 52 to 60, Schedule 4, Clauses 61 to 67, Title.

Motion agreed.

Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [HL]

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1.

1: Clause 12, page 5, line 6, leave out from “force” to end of line 7 and insert “on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint”.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, I will also speak briefly to the procedural Amendment 2. It is a pleasure to present the amended Bill to this House. The passage of the Bill has benefited from scrutiny from your Lordships and from the other place. I am heartened to have seen the clear commitment to addressing the challenges of our current skills system. By paving the way for Skills England and empowering it with the functions currently exercised by IfATE, the Bill will ensure that Skills England is the single authoritative voice in the skills landscape. The changes the Bill makes will enable Skills England to identify and help address the skills gaps that hamper growth and opportunity in this country.

Skills England is not just ready but raring to go. That is why the substantive change made to the Bill in the other place was to remove the amendment that would have delayed the commencement of provisions in the Bill for a year after the creation of Skills England. The Skills England leadership is in place, the work is already ongoing and staff are ready to transfer. Delay to the commencement of the provisions in the Bill would not have been needed or helpful.

In addition to the substantive amendment on commencement, a procedural amendment was made in the other place to remove the Lords privilege amendment, in line with convention. This amendment makes no substantive change to the Bill. I am grateful to noble Lords for all their energy and collaboration as this House has considered the Bill and I beg to move.

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, I have no intention of opposing the amendments sent to us by the House of Commons. I regret the removal of the sole amendment passed by this House, which would, in my view, have given more time for Skills England to get its strategic work fully up and running before taking on the functions to be transferred from IfATE. Having said that, I greatly welcome the establishment of Skills England. I am impressed by the leadership appointments that have been made, with Phil Smith as chair and Sir David Bell as vice-chair. This body has a vital role in meeting the UK’s skills needs, which are fundamental to virtually every objective we and the Government have set for ourselves, and I wish it every success.

I would like to restate my two major concerns, and I will be more than happy if they prove unfounded in the fullness of time. First, will Skills England be able to effectively co-ordinate the work of all the different bodies that need to be involved if we are to deliver a successful skills system overall? That is across government departments, across regions and nations, across industries and sectors and across education and training institutions. Skills England will have to be a pretty effective and tough body with some teeth to make sure that all those bodies fulfil their particular roles in the overall system. My second, more specific question is, how will that successful skills system be defined, measured, monitored and assessed? What will the Government come back to tell us in a few years’ time to demonstrate that it has been successful?

I welcome the Bill as an important first step towards a successful skills system, and I very much hope that the concerns I have expressed will indeed prove to have been unfounded.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have been involved in the passage of the Bill. His Majesty’s Official Opposition remain concerned that the Government have removed the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran. Other noble Lords also expressed concerns that Skills England will be overly focused on administration, resulting in it being unable to prioritise its central strategic tasks. By allowing a year to pass between the creation of Skills England and the abolition of IfATE, we would create sufficient time for the effective transfer of functions and ensure that Skills England could take on its role successfully.

We would suggest that it is a mistake for the Government to ignore these concerns. In both your Lordships’ House and the other place, there has been cross-party support on this issue, and we cannot hide our disappointment that the Government remain unconvinced on this focal point. We on these Benches are worried that the transition period as planned will have a damaging impact on apprentices.

At the same time, we recognise that this is a manifesto commitment. We will, of course, while challenging constructively, work with His Majesty’s Government to progress their skills programme, and we do not intend to push this issue any further. We will continue to remain vigilant on the transition to Skills England and ensure that it is working for the very people it aims to help. Should our concerns increase, we will endeavour to raise them in your Lordships’ House. It is now up to the Government to ensure that Skills England is able to run effectively and does not become overwhelmed with the weight of the accreditation and assurance process.

We are indeed grateful that His Majesty’s Government have listened to some of the key points that have been raised across your Lordships’ House, and the Bill has been strengthened accordingly. A report on the exercise of functions conferred or imposed on the Secretary of State has now been included, which is important for accountability. The Government have listened to the concerns about the Secretary of State preparing apprenticeship plans and assessments, and will, as such, publish information about the relevant matters that have been taken into account.

We thank the Minister for her engagement throughout consideration of the Bill, and we thank all noble Lords who have made such valuable contributions and worked constructively on its scrutiny.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the support of noble Lords and the continued challenge of those who have made the Bill better during its passage through this House.

On whether Skills England is ready, I reassure noble Lords that it is ready to take on the functions currently exercised by IfATE, where appropriate. Detailed transition plans are in place to ensure continuity throughout the transition. There will be continuity in staff and team structures, which will ensure a smooth operational transition and maintain vital links to employers. Staff are eager to contribute their expertise and valuable insights, to feed into Skills England’s broader purpose from day one.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion on Amendment 2

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

Moved by

That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2.

2: Clause 14, page 6, line 4, leave out subsection (2)

“For Women Scotland” Supreme Court Ruling

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, the Statement, which we have not had the privilege of listening to in this House today, said that the ruling was not a zero-sum game. That is a phrase I have been using for quite a long time in this context, and I totally agree, but the practical repercussions of the ruling have been left to others to sort out—for women, trans people, non-binary, intersex and anyone else who may not pass muster through no fault of their own.

We need guidelines, as the noble Baroness has just mentioned, for the management of single-sex spaces and for institutions such as hospitals, the police, operators of gyms and so on. Then there are everyone else’s human rights, such as the right to privacy and to safety—if you are a trans woman being forced to use men’s toilets, for example—and not to be subjected to degrading treatment. How will the Government organise these guidelines? Can the Minister say what the timescale is? In the meantime, what is the advice to those who are now not allowed to use single-sex facilities? Are they to lose their right to public life, including as advisers to this House?

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, this ruling brings welcome clarity and confidence for women and service providers. Throughout my life, not just as a Minister, I have campaigned and worked for women’s rights and for the need for single-sex spaces, including, given my great age, when it was not the mainstream concern that it has become now. Like many of my sisters on these Benches, some of my earliest political campaigning was for the single-sex spaces necessary in refuges and rape crisis services to protect and support women.

The Government will therefore continue as before, working to protect single-sex spaces based on biological sex, now with the added clarity of this ruling. We will continue our wider work with commitment and compassion to protect all those who need it, right across society.

This is a Government who will support the rights of women and trans people, now and always. We will support the rights of our most vulnerable, now and always, and on that there is no change.

However, this is an important judgment, long in the making. It began in 2018 when Scottish Ministers issued guidance on the definition of a “woman” in the eyes of the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. That guidance stated that a “woman” in that Act bears the same meaning as in the Equality Act 2010 and included trans women with a gender recognition certificate. For Women Scotland challenged that guidance, saying that “sex” in the Equality Act means biological sex, so that a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate is a man for the purposes of the Act. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court and last week the court ruled that sex in the Equality Act means biological sex. This means that a person will be considered as their biological sex for the purposes of the Equality Act, regardless of whether they have a gender recognition certificate.

As both noble Baronesses have identified, there is now a need to ensure that this ruling is clear across a range of settings, from healthcare and prisons to sport and single-sex support groups. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, as Britain’s equality regulator, is working quickly to issue an updated statutory code of practice to reflect this judgment, and we look forward to reviewing that code of practice in due course. It will, of course, be laid in front of Parliament for approval.

On some of the other issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, on the Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) and Health Education and Gender Questioning Children guidance that I think she was referring to, that draft was produced just before last July’s general election and before the response to the Cass Review recommendations. We are considering that carefully—including with stakeholders and in the light of the Cass Review—with the interests of children absolutely at the heart, and we will publish that guidance soon.

On the noble Baroness’s points about the data Bill, I know that those issues have been discussed at length in this House and in the other place. The data Bill does not change the nature of sex or gender reporting in the way in which she implied.

On hospital wards, given that the last Government presided over a 2,000% increase in mixed-sex wards, the noble Baroness is right that there is a problem with the dignity available to patients in single-sex wards. Given the clarity in this guidance, NHS England is now reviewing the guidance and working quickly to make sure that that is communicated properly to the health service. This Government’s investment in the NHS will help practically to ensure that all people can have the dignity and care that they need in the NHS.

Referring to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, I also know and have heard from trans people, their families and friends who are worried in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, so I want to provide reassurance here and now that trans people will continue to be protected. As a Government, we will deliver a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. We will work to equalise all existing strands of hate crime and review adult gender identity services, so that all trans people get the high-quality care they deserve. The laws to protect trans people from discrimination and harassment will remain in place, and trans people will still be protected on the basis of gender reassignment, which is a protected characteristic written into Labour’s Equality Act.

The Supreme Court verdict is about clarity and coherence in the eyes of the law, but along with that verdict the judges delivered a vital reminder. This is not about the triumph of one group at the expense of another. It is not about winners or losers, and it is not about us or them. Everybody in our society deserves dignity and respect. Those are the values that define a modern and compassionate society and the values that this Government will uphold.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we are now moving on to 20 minutes of Back-Bench questions on the Statement. I remind all noble Lords about language and that the House expects the usual courtesies to be respected. This is Back-Bench questions, not speeches. If our questions are short, succinct and to the point, I hope we will get in at least 16 contributions from Back-Bench Members. To assist noble Lords, the first question will be from the Conservative Benches, and I will then go to the Labour Benches, then to the Liberal Democrat Benches and then to the Cross Benches. At that point, I will see where we go next.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her statement of acceptance of the Supreme Court’s judgment and thank the Supreme Court for its courage. This issue has always been about the safety of women and girls in their single-sex spaces for which women, including the Minister, have fought long and hard for. Many of us have been involved in those campaigns over the years. Of course, compassion for all must be at the heart of it, but a significant level of violence has been displayed towards women and girls in the last few days, including violent statements sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, in her capacity as chair of the EHRC. I invite the Minister now to join with me in condemning all gestures and statements of violence that we have seen against women and girls and to have the government support to stand against this.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The violence and abuse received by those women who took forward this action and by others who have taken this position is wholly unacceptable, as is the vandalism of statues that we saw over the weekend. We have already condemned that in the strongest possible terms, and we support action being taken by the Metropolitan Police on that. This is a debate that has not always been carried out in the spirit of respect, recognising the enormously sensitive and difficult issues, and I hope that from now on we will be able to do that.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, once again I declare my interest as the parent of a trans child. As a matter of law, the Supreme Court’s decision does not require the exclusion of trans people from all single-sex spaces; rather, it declares that, provided an organisation makes a proportionate decision, then that will not be unlawful. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that these are complicated issues, which involve balancing rights and risks? Does she also agree that what is needed now is calm consideration, on a case-by-case basis, so as to ensure that all our fellow citizens feel safe and are protected?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It is clear in the Supreme Court’s judgment that, for the purposes of the Equality Act, where single-sex spaces are being provided, they will be provided on the basis of biological sex. That does not, of course, prevent the provision of inclusive services where there is clarity that those services are being provided on that basis.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I am glad that all the main party leaders have accepted the Supreme Court judgment, including my own leader on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I think it would be better if all leaders could express a welcome for the judgment itself, not just for the clarity it brings. I have two questions. How will the Government ensure not only that those single-sex facilities provided are kept single sex but also that service providers do not sidestep the provision of single-sex facilities by defaulting all the time to unisex provision? Secondly, do the Government agree that lessons need to be learned across the political spectrum about the need to safeguard all protected characteristics? If that of women—the majority of the population—can have been eroded in this way, what about all the other protected characteristics, including gender reassignment and sexual orientation, of course? How will all those be safeguarded?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

On the noble Baroness’s final point, as I outlined at the beginning, protecting the most vulnerable people and protecting people on the basis of their protected characteristics remain an important element of the Equality Act and an important element of this Government’s programme and ambitions.

On how the clarity that this ruling brings will be communicated to and represented by providers, this is where the work of the Equality and Human Rights Commission—in particular, the updated statutory code of practice—will be enormously important. It will spell out the practical implications to ensure that the meaning and clarity of this judgment are delivered in practice, particularly, as the noble Baroness outlined, in relation to single-sex spaces and their protection. This does provide more clarity now on the provision of those single-sex spaces.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, as we watch Governments around the world roll back on their commitment to the rights of people who choose to live life differently, and to do so freely, safely and with dignity, I very much welcome the comments the Minister has repeated about the rights of everyone in our society to have dignity and respect.

My question is a very specific one about provisions in hospitals. I hear what the Minister says, but there are surely some spaces where there will always be a joint provision, particularly intensive care units, where it does not make sense to provide specific spaces. Could the Minister clarify that there will be nuance in how the ruling is interpreted?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that there are technicalities and complications about the way healthcare is provided. There is, however, now clarity through this ruling about where the intention is that spaces should be single sex—as is the case with provisions in wards in hospitals. That should be clear.

The NHS England guidance, supported by colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, will want to look in detail at the very sensible point she made about the practicalities of how healthcare is provided. The important point is that people’s dignity, at a time when they are probably feeling at their most vulnerable, needs to be protected. There is more clarity that has been provided post this ruling.

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)]

My Lords, in December Dr Eleanor Frances reached a significant settlement of over £116,000 with a no-confidentiality clause after constructive dismissal from the Civil Service based on her gender-critical beliefs. As a result, the Civil Service committed to revise its guidelines. In the light of the Supreme Court ruling, can the Minister update the House on how this work is going and how soon the new guidelines might be introduced?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Gender-critical beliefs are of course protected under the provisions of the Equality Act. I do not know where that particular guidance or those changes have got to, but I will come back to the noble Baroness with progress on that.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Statement but advise her not to take any advice from the party opposite. When they were in government, as this House knows, I raised again and again the question of the GMC registering doctors by their preferred gender and not by sex. This makes it very difficult for a woman to give informed consent if she does not know whether the doctor is a woman or not. Similarly, where chaperones are requested by a woman patient, they can be offered someone who is not a biological woman when clearly they want a woman. The old Government did nothing about this, so could the new Government please talk to the NHS to make sure that the sex of the doctor or the chaperone is quite clear, particularly, I am afraid, for women patients?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is of course right. I think we should be judged on this on the basis of our action to protect women and girls, our action to protect the most vulnerable in our society and our action to ensure that trans rights are upheld, rather than our rhetoric. That will be the way that we will want to go forward.

My noble friend raised the very important point, as I suggested earlier, about the need for dignity and clarity for people receiving healthcare. That is the reason the NHS will now look carefully at the implications of this ruling and will update its guidance where necessary to ensure that that protection and that dignity are safeguarded.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure that everyone in this House wants trans girls and trans women to feel welcome here, so what changes will happen to toilet facilities in the Lords? I have only been able to find one sex-neutral toilet. It is a single stall and it is inconveniently placed. Will neutral facilities, open to all, of every sex, be made available and located in places convenient for Members, staff and visitors?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The facilities of the House of Lords are not something for which I have responsibility. I am sure, like all other providers of services, the House will be considering carefully both this ruling and the requirement to ensure that people are able to access services that respect their dignity.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I have a very technical legal question. Some of the commentary I have heard on the ruling suggests that, if an organisation decides to use biological sex as a basis, it may do so, but not that it must do so. Is that correct?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My understanding of the ruling is that, where single-sex spaces are provided, they should be provided on the basis of biological sex. It is not, of course, the case that every service needs to be provided on the basis of single sex, but, where they are provided on that basis, it should be done on the basis of biological sex.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, next and then the noble Baroness, Lady Fox.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I very much hope that trans people will still believe that this is a country where they are welcome and where their rights and dignity are upheld; that is certainly the position in law. My noble friend raises an important point around hate crime. We are working with the Home Office to equalise the approach taken to hate crime to ensure that all of it, including that against trans people, is manifested as an aggravated offence in the way in which he is asking.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, this is not party political: Front-Benchers on all sides shunned across Benches. We were shamed, shunned and shushed for simply asserting women as adult human females. But can the Minister clarify and reassure that not one trans person’s rights have been removed by the Supreme Court? Does she agree that the problem is that, as legislators, we misled trans people and institutions about the law by encouraging the myths of gender ideology or gender identity being the same as biological sex? Will she ensure that the Civil Service is now properly informed so that we, as lawmakers, no longer peddle mistruths—and, in fact, misinformation—as we have been for some time?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am sure that the Civil Service, we as lawmakers and all public bodies will look carefully at this ruling and the statutory code of practice that will be brought forward by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I add that, the last time I was asked, I referred to a woman as an adult female from this Dispatch Box—that was before the ruling.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, if noble Lords read the whole document, they will see that the judge recognised the sensitivity of his judgment. My noble friend the Minister has also recognised the need for compassion, respect and dignity, so I ask her whether the Government can ensure that the EHRC, in producing guidance, will give the trans communities their right to be consulted in the creation of the new guidance and information shared with the public. Can the Government ensure that the EHRC will look at this very carefully before it is announced?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

One of the important things about the EHRC’s production of the statutory code of practice, and other forms of guidance, is that it consults as widely as possible, as my noble friend outlined. That is one of the ways that everybody will be able to be confident about their rights and the rights for trans people that remain in the law now.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, this welcome decision has long-overdue implications for competition in sport, both nationally and internationally. Will the Minister agree that national governing bodies of sport, particularly for football and cricket, along with organisers of events such as the London Marathon events, should now revise their rules? Will she agree that Sport England should publish its advice and oversee implementation of that advice as soon as possible—certainly before the Summer Recess?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The integrity and fairness of sport are obviously crucial. The Equality Act actually always allowed sporting bodies, for example, to exclude trans people from gender-affected sporting competitions if necessary to secure fair competition or for the safety of their competitors. I am sure that sporting bodies will now look carefully at this ruling as they consider how to maintain that integrity and fairness.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, a Government Minister said this week that everyone should use toilets according to their sex recorded at birth. I think the Minister has said similar things this morning, in terms of single-sex spaces and biological sex. With trans men, some of whom look more of a man than I do, being told to use women’s facilities, how does this make women safer or less fearful, when a predatory male could simply claim to be a trans man?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It was the Supreme Court that was clear that single-sex spaces, including toilets, should be offered on the basis of biological sex, and Ministers were reflecting that ruling. This is a difficult issue, and I am sure that it will be considered by the EHRC during the production of its code of practice. Increasingly, in very many public places we see unisex toilets, which are available to everybody.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, can the Minister give an absolute commitment that the Supreme Court judgment will apply to Northern Ireland in full, like the rest of the United Kingdom, despite Northern Ireland being left under EU equality laws?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I will come back to the noble Baroness about that. There are elements of this ruling and the scope of the Equality Act that we need to look at carefully, but I will come back to her.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I was in your Lordships’ House when the Equality Act was debated for a number of days. Lord Lester of Herne Hill and I were sparring partners, but we were very clear then that, as the Supreme Court has said, when you talk about a woman you mean this. That is very clear in the debates in this House. Now that the ruling has been clarified, there is a question that people wanted to ask, and the judges have said that this not a winning position for one group or another. How will the Government ensure that anybody who wants to comment reads that judgment clearly so that they know where it is going, and that trans people’s rights have not been taken away but remain? What will the Government do to help trans people who now feel as if they have become second-class citizens?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I hope I provided some reassurance in my opening comments. The noble and right reverend Lord is right that this does not remove legal protections for trans people.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, Section 2 of the Gender Recognition Act requires somebody applying for a gender recognition certificate to have lived in the acquired gender for at least the preceding two years. In the light of this judgment, how is somebody to fulfil that statutory requirement if they are not permitted to use common public facilities that are designed for people of their acquired gender? If possessing a certificate no longer entitles them to use them, what does the Minister say are the material advantages of obtaining a gender recognition certificate at all?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, many of the elements of obtaining a gender recognition certificate remain in place, with the exception that is now applied by this ruling to the definition of “women” in the Equality Act. We do not believe that this undermines the rights or processes involved in the Gender Recognition Act.

Free School Meals

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to make it more straightforward for parents to check their children’s eligibility for free school meals.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, we want to ensure that all families who need it get the support they are entitled to, which is why we make claiming free school meals simple through the provision of an eligibility checking system to local authorities to assess claims for meals. This system is being improved to allow parents to check their own eligibility for free meals, which has the potential to support more families in taking up their entitlement.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her Answer, but the bureaucracy involved in registering is proving a barrier for many families. As a result, a considerable number of children are losing out on the free school meals to which they are entitled; the current estimate is about a quarter of a million across England. Does my noble friend agree that this is not just about the children? Local authorities are losing out on the pupil premium that is triggered as soon as registration takes place, and these are vital funds for many schools. I am not asking for more money: the money is already in the system. Rather, I invite my noble friend to suggest how that money can be released as fully as it has been in the local authorities that have introduced automatic enrolment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important point about how we can smooth the process to ensure that people are able to gain their entitlement. We recognise—as my noble friend does—the vital role played by free school meals both in supporting individual children and identifying where additional support needs to be provided to schools.

To reiterate what I said previously, we are working to improve the eligibility checking system, making it available to parents, for example. We are also working with stakeholders to better understand some of the barriers to the take-up of free school meals. The improvement of data sharing could also help to ensure that local authorities have the information they need to work more closely with the families who could, and should, be entitled to free school meals. That is why we are working with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to explore legal gateways that could enable data sharing to improve that ability, giving local authorities access to that data and enabling them to take action to ensure that more families who are entitled are getting their free school meals.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, there is a history of underclaiming of benefits running through the whole system. It is not to do with this Government or even the last one; it has been there for a long time. Will the Government look at how to increase the number of people who claim what they are entitled to in the new Bill that is coming before us on 1 May, as that would seem to be a good opportunity?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We are already taking action, as I suggested, through widening the ability of people to use the eligibility checker, by ensuring that there is better sharing of data with local authorities. On the point about reducing the friction in the application process, we are working with DWP to consider how we can more closely link applying for universal credit with entitlement to free school meals. There is a variety of activity that the Government are already undertaking. I am sure we will have the opportunity to discuss that in more detail and length when we bring forward the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to the House.

[Baroness Hazarika (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure we all agree that we want our children to be well fed at school. Hungry children cannot learn. Picking up on the comments, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, there is still a lot of stigma around enrolling for this. Could AI not help local authorities and others to identify families who could qualify for free school meals and auto-enrol them?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I suspect that there are ways in which AI could help. As we talk to stakeholders and others who are involved in trying to encourage the full take-up of free school meal entitlement, there are also some less technological ways in which, for example, those who work closely with families, let us say in local authorities, on other areas of their benefits—housing benefit, for example—can be facilitated through the sharing of data that I have talked about to make the links for those families to the sharing of free school meals. There is a whole range of other areas of stigma, as my noble friend outlined, where sometimes work, both in schools and at a local level, can help to overcome those barriers and make sure that children and their families are getting what they are entitled to.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned DWP. She will be aware of the concerns about the loss of entitlement to free school meals when those on legacy benefits migrate to universal credit. The estimates I have seen are as high as 1 million children. Could she say what assessment the department has made of this? If she does not have the figures, perhaps she could write to me and put a copy in the Library.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is talking about the changes to the transitional protections: as she knows, phase one has now come to an end. To reassure families, no pupil will feel any change as a result of the move to phase two of the protections until after the summer. I can assure the noble Baroness that, as with all government policy, we will keep our approach to free school meals under review. I am happy to write to her with the figures for those who have had transitional protections and how they will be supported until the end of this school year. Then, we will bring forward more information about what will happen at that particular point.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

My Lords, I was told before the election that this was a GDPR issue, but it became very clear that it is not. Now that that is clear, every single one of the 23 local authorities in the north-east is now engaged in auto-enrolling every eligible child for free school meals. In Newcastle alone, within the last year, that is over 2,000 additional children, and of course the schools also benefit. Will my noble friend join me in congratulating every one of those 23 authorities, but also really push to make sure that other local authorities just get on with it?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important point, and makes the case that I was trying to outline about the way in which local authorities are often very well placed to ensure that children are getting what they are entitled to, but often need the data and the information to be shared with them in order to be able to do that—although I know my noble friend thinks that they could have done it more easily. But we will facilitate the sharing of that data and I share her view that, where some local authorities have already made enormous progress in enrolling more children in free school meals, others should look to their example and ensure that they do that as well.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, will the Minister consider the scheme funded by the Mayor of London, by which all state primary school children receive free school meals, with the undoubted benefits that brings, and will she consider extending that nationally?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

One of the things about devolving responsibilities is that it enables in this case mayors to make decisions about how they want to spend their resources. As I said, at the moment we are focused on ensuring that all those who are entitled to free school meals under the current criteria are able to get them. Decisions about how and whether to extend that entitlement more broadly will of course be dependent on much wider decisions about the resources that are available and where as a Government we think we need to focus them to get the best possible results for children.

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

My Lords, unlike other young students from poor backgrounds in further education who can qualify for a free meal, apprentices from poor backgrounds do not. Given that we want to encourage every young person from every background to go for an apprenticeship, will my noble friend the Minister consider looking again at the eligibility criteria for further education institutions to allow more young people from poor backgrounds to get and stay in apprenticeships?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I certainly want to ensure that we right the decline in young people starting apprenticeships that has happened over the last few years. As my noble friend knows, if you are in an apprenticeship, you are essentially in a job with training, spending perhaps one day a week in a further education college, so I am not sure that free school meals would be the best way of encouraging people on to those apprenticeships. But I certainly want to consider how we can enable more young people to get the benefits of an apprenticeship, particularly at that early age, where we have seen such a fall-off in the numbers.

Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, this last-minute announcement of the renewal of the fund, while welcome in itself, feels extraordinary, as it came after weeks of obfuscation and a day after the previous fund had expired. Will the Minister explain what happened, what went wrong, when applications will open and what the Government are doing to make sure that the most urgent cases are fast-tracked for support?

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

I am sure that all noble Lords will recognise the very important role played by the adoption and special guardianship support fund, which provides valuable therapeutic support to adopted children and special guardianship children who were previously in care. I very much appreciate that the delay in confirming the continuation of this fund has been a very difficult time for many people. In relation to individual arrangements, we put in place transitional funding arrangements ahead of the full 2025-26 budget announcements that we were able to make yesterday. This means that therapy that started in the last financial year has continued into this financial year, so most children who are in the middle of their therapy have not missed out. I am pleased that the Government were able yesterday to confirm that £50 million has been allocated for the adoption and special guardianship support fund. We will be announcing further details in coming days and opening applications to families and children across the country as soon as we can.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, it is nice to hear that we have actually got round to finding some solution here, but will the Minister give us an assurance that we will not have this stop-start approach to something which needs continuation? If we want people to become guardians or to take on these adoptions of very difficult cases, they need to have some continuation and support. Effectively, this delay, this potential trouble, was something that would discourage people. What are the Government going to do to make sure that this never happens again and to undo the damage they have done to the image here?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As I pointed out, for individual children there was transitional support for therapy that they had got permission to receive from last year into this year. However, I concede that this has been a difficult time for both the children and families that receive support through the fund and for therapists who supply support as part of that funding. We will work as hard as we can to make sure that we provide consistency and early indication of budgeting in future years.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

My Lords, it seems clear that this support is critical for many children, and I am thinking in particular of children in kinship care. The problem is that at the moment the criteria restrict the fund to those who have previously been in the care system. When kinship care really works well is when the case conference enables the wider family to step in immediately, but the child may still be traumatised and indeed other members of the family may need support too. Will the Minister commit to looking at this so that, when the Government are thinking about the criteria for the now very welcome money, they think about those who are not just coming through the care system?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that the adoption and special guardianship support fund is specifically aimed at recognising the state’s role in having previously cared for the child at the point at which they are adopted or go into special guardianship. She is also right about the enormously important role that kinship care plays in our system. That is why the Government have made a series of announcements about how we can support the important role of kinship care: the appointment of the first national kinship care ambassador; the new kinship care statutory guidance for local authorities; the delivery of over 140 peer support groups across England, available for all kinship carers to access; and, of course, the recently announced £40 million package to trial a new kinship allowance, to test whether paying an allowance to cover the additional costs of supporting the child can help to increase the number of children taken in by family members and friends, with all the benefits that my noble friend has identified.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that we need to do all that we can to demonstrate that we value enormously people who are willing to adopt a child who has had a very unfortunate start to their young lives? That includes the excellent foster carers who would like to go forward to adoption but who may have difficulty reconciling the financial issues that that raises. Could the Minister assure the House that everything will be done to promote adoption as a positive, creative and enabling way of protecting children?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right. As I say, I do regret the concern that there has been among adoptive parents and those with special guardianship orders about the certainty of the support that we were able to announce yesterday. I assure noble Lords that this does not show a lack of support from the Government for adopted children or adopters, who, as the noble Lord says, play an enormously important and positive role. Today, the Government have been able to confirm funding of £8.8 million for Adoption England to improve the recruitment of adopters and the matching of children and family support during this financial year.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, with regard to the delay in funding, I welcome the Minister’s point about transition funding being arranged for existing families, but because of the delay there will be a backlog of kinship families and local authorities that want to proceed with new applications for therapeutic assessments and support. What steps are the Government going to take to ensure that processing can be done at speed for these new applications?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We want to come forward quickly with information about how new applications can be made, and I will be happy to share details of that with the House. I understand that, when applications are made, they are dealt with quickly through the system, but we need to be clear with people about how to go about making those applications, and that is something that we are working on at this moment.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, the funding that has been announced for the next financial year is welcome, and I know that the Government have said that funding going forward will be subject to the spending review. Is it anticipated that there will be an announcement that this fund will be secured over more than one year?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I think the noble Baroness answered the question in her question. We have announced £50 million for this financial year and, as part of the coming spending review, we will look to consider the position over a longer period. That is not only in respect of this particular fund but is the case with a lot of the expenditure we currently have and would have been the case under the previous Government as well in the run-up to a three-year spending review, which is the period we are in now.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister accept my thanks for having widened the crack she opened about a week ago when this matter was first raised in this House? That was welcome. I also thank her for the very whole-hearted way in which she endorsed kinship care in her responses just now. Does she recognise that in the education Bill, whose Second Reading will be on 1 May, which deals with some aspects of kinship care, there are obscurities and weaknesses in that? I hope that, between now and 1 May, she can give some very careful thought as to how that could be made more precise in the Bill.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am looking forward to 1 May, when we can start the adventure of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. I am undertaking to continue my learning about the provisions within that Bill over the Easter Recess and, as I have learnt in this House, I have no doubt that we will both get into the detail and be informed by considerable experts on all parts of that legislation. I look forward to explaining more about how that Bill will support kinship care and to learning more about the challenge and what more this Government need to be able to do to put that into operation.