Mobile Phones in Schools

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s announcement and, in particular, their recognition that schools must be places where children can concentrate, learn and develop relationships without the constant distraction of mobile phones.

However, I hope the Minister will forgive me for pointing out that the Government have taken rather a long time to arrive at this position. It was rightly pointed out that it was the Opposition Benches in your Lordships’ House who consistently pressed for schools to become phone-free environments. I notice that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is in her place. We spent many a time meeting with parents, head teachers and other campaigners.

During the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act, we pushed the Government to put their guidance on a statutory footing, despite their initial reluctance. We argued that the voluntary guidance was insufficient and that head teachers needed clarity and consistency, and I am pleased that the Government have finally recognised the strength of that argument.

The stats presented underline why further action is necessary. Only 16% of secondary school pupils say that mobile phone rules are followed all the time. More strikingly, where schools operate a “not seen, not heard” policy, only 20% of school leaders report consistent compliance, compared with 74% where phones are collected. That is compelling evidence that the existing approach is not working.

However, announcing stronger guidance is one thing; giving schools the resources to implement it is quite another. The Government have suggested that schools can choose between collecting phones, secure lockers or lockable pouches—but these approaches all have financial and practical implications. The Education Committee has highlighted that purchasing pouches alone can cost a secondary school around £20,000. We all know that school budgets are under enormous pressure, and we cannot expect head teachers to absorb yet another unfunded responsibility. Can the Minister therefore explain why the Government are not providing dedicated funding to support schools with implementation? Will they commit to ensuring that no school is disadvantaged because it cannot afford the necessary equipment?

Secondly, I welcome the Government’s recognition that exemptions and reasonable adjustments will be necessary for children with medical and special educational needs and disabilities. For some children, a mobile phone is not simply a distraction; it is an essential tool for managing a medical condition, communicating or accessing support. I am also particularly concerned about young carers, who may need to check on a sick, disabled or vulnerable family member during the school day. Will the Minister give an explicit assurance that young carers will be included in the exemptions alongside children with SEND and medical needs, and that these arrangements will be straightforward rather than creating additional barriers for vulnerable pupils?

Finally, I strongly support the principle that head teachers should have the flexibility to decide how best to implement a phone-free environment in their schools. Schools have different circumstances, communities and practical challenges. A one-size-fits-all approach to enforcement will not necessarily work. Flexibility must be matched with resources, clear guidance and proper support. Will the Minister commit to working directly with school leaders and representative organisations to ensure that the revised guidance is practical and properly funded, and does not simply transfer additional costs on to already stretched schools and parents?

Our children deserve classrooms where they can concentrate, learn and enjoy their childhood without the pressures of smartphones and social media. We on these Benches have been campaigning for this change for a long time and we welcome the Government finally moving in the right direction. But we must now ensure that this policy works in practice for every school and every child. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

My Lords, in January 2026 the Government strengthened their guidance on mobile phones in schools, making it clear that all schools should have mobile phones policy that prevents pupils having access to their phone throughout the school day, including during lessons, the time between lessons, break times and lunchtimes. This guidance was put on a statutory footing during the passage of what became the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act, and schools have been required to implement it since September 2026. However, evidence and feedback from the sector—and from noble Lords in this House—suggest that challenges persist.

That is why the Government are announcing that we will update statutory guidance to be clear that schools should have policies that ensure children cannot have unsecured mobile phones in their bag or blazer throughout the school day. This backs teachers and leaders with the clarity that they are asking for. This may mean phones are collected at the start of the day, kept in secure lockers, stored in a lockable pouch, or any other strategies that ensure phones are not accessed at any point during the school day.

Noble Lords opposite raised points about the timetable. While the new statutory guidance will be introduced from September 2027, it is of course the Government’s wish—I believe evidence suggests that this will happen—that schools move more quickly towards the implementation of this policy. Of course, we have seen evidence in the last year with a near doubling in the numbers of schools that are ensuring that pupils cannot have any access to their phones during the course of the day. This answers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, about resources.

All the evidence about the different ways in which schools have approached this issue suggests that it is culture, leadership and clarity that are the most important elements in ensuring that schools are successful in carrying out this policy. We are confident that schools will be able to move more quickly than the beginning of the revised statutory guidance in September 2027. Of course, we will want to work with leaders and others within our schools to ensure that this policy is both supported by government and put in place in our schools.

The noble Lord made a particular point about young carers. It is quite tricky because, arguably, young carers, as much as any other child, deserve the opportunity to have a mobile phone-free experience in school. I am not sure that specifically exempting them is the most appropriate way forward, but we would expect schools to recognise the need for young carers sometimes to be able to phone home or to be contacted. Using the school office, for example, to facilitate that might be a good way forward.

Noble Lords raised points about edtech safety certification. Technology is now an integral part of education, supporting teaching, learning and the smooth running of schools, colleges and early years settings. It is essential that children and young people learn to use technology confidently and safely, so they are prepared for and can thrive in a rapidly evolving digital world.

However, technology should support learning, rather than get in its way, and it must be safe. The Department for Education has developed and already sets standards for the safe use of technology in education settings, including digital and technology standards and generative AI product safety standards, setting our expectations for the safe use of technology in education settings. However, schools and other education settings often have to make complex technical judgments when selecting technology without clear and consistent evidence about product safety. That is the thinking behind the consultation launched yesterday on proposals for edtech safety certification.

This is about getting ahead of the curve and ensuring that the Government are not passive to technological change but actively ensuring that it is safe for children and supports their development, and also supports schools with difficult decisions about appropriate edtech in a rapidly changing technological environment.

I do not think the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, really means that there should be no use of screens in classrooms. One of the things I regret from my time teaching is that I never got the opportunity to use a whiteboard, for example, in the imaginative way that is pretty well taken for granted in most classrooms now. Nor did I get to use technology to support group work and learning, in some of the ways where I think there is evidence that it supports, rather than replaces, pupils’ learning. Of course, it is important that we are clear about how it is used and that we agree that schools need good evidence about whether technology is effective.

We think that safety and effectiveness require different approaches. Safety can be assessed against clear expectations, while educational effectiveness depends on the pupils, the setting and how a product is used. That is why we are addressing effectiveness through the £24 million national edtech test bed programme, to build evidence about what works, for whom and in what contexts. We think that together these two approaches will help schools to make informed decisions about technology that is both safe and effective and, in doing that, provide the support and evidence that teachers need to ensure access to learning and the space to do that without being sidetracked by the use of mobile phones. That is what our children deserve.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, first I thank noble Lords who were so generous in their remarks about my part in getting us to this point. As was noted, I was definitely not alone; other noble Baronesses who are in the House tonight were there on the journey. I am not sure what the Minister and I will talk about if we cannot talk about “not seen, not heard” any more, but I hope we will find something else.

I have a few specific questions for the Minister; if she would prefer to write on any of them, I would be very happy with that. First, the Statement talks about there being flexibility around children who have medical needs and SEND. Could she give the House an example of where a child with SEND would need their personal mobile device, as opposed to a school-provided device that would meet their needs? Secondly, will the guidance cover school trips as well as the school day? We know that some pretty terrible things have happened with phones on school trips. Also, are the Government planning to future-proof the guidance? Schools are talking about smart watches and smart glasses. How do the Government intend to approach that?

I was very pleased to read in the Statement that the Government plan to talk to head teachers. Many of us in this House know some really pioneering head teachers, including those who have prohibited phones completely, used brick phones or taken other approaches. I am sure they would be delighted either to meet directly with the Minister or to contribute as the guidance is developed.

Finally, in our debates on mobile phones and on social media, we learned that health professionals were often the first to spot a lot of the problems that we are now talking about. Speech and language therapists, opticians and so on were noticing changes in children. Is there a place for some of those health experts as the edtech kitemark is developed?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness; it is certainly the case that she has been tenacious on this issue. We have talked about lots of other things, and I am sure we will again in future. I am slightly fearful about what she will choose to get her teeth into next.

On the examples, in this House we have previously talked about specific assistive technology that might be important for young people and medical technology that is linked to a phone, for example for diabetes monitoring. Those would be the sorts of things that would fall into that category.

On the point about school trips, it is not the intention of the guidance that this policy will apply when children are travelling to and from school, so I feel it probably would not cover school trips. I will come back to the noble Baroness if I am wrong about that.

The noble Baroness makes an important point about future-proofing all this. The fact that we have updated the guidance and are taking further action around edtech demonstrates the situation we find ourselves in. Both the evidence and technology are developing fast, and of course we will want to keep up with that.

On the methods and gadgets that the noble Baroness discussed, we intend to produce AI in education guidance that will help identify some of the opportunities and issues in other areas. I do not know how long I will be here, particularly given the way I am feeling this evening, but I have no doubt that this will not be the last time I talk about how we are updating our work in government to ensure that the objective that all noble Lords share—that children need to be able to focus on learning rather than scrolling or the distraction that comes from screens—is at the heart of our work.

Her final point about health experts was a very good one. I will certainly take that back and consider how we engage with health experts as part of this work.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Tenacity is a good word; I was thinking of something a little tougher earlier.

I really do welcome this Statement and join with others in regretting that we have had to fight so hard for it. I looked this up in Hansard and noticed that the first time we debated this was five years ago. The battle of last year, or a couple of years ago, was the culmination of us all coming together. I say that not to take anything away from that particular fight but to make a broader point about the things that we did not get in that Bill.

I thank the Secretary of State in particular for the Statement and for getting it over the line now. She has succeeded where others have failed. I really want to recognise that moment.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to independent certification of educational technology—something else that we have fought for over many years—and in particular its references to filtering and monitoring. I was very grateful for the letter from the early years Minister and his officials earlier in the week. However, I am concerned about the focus on safety; it is much narrower than I and other noble Lords have been calling for. I absolutely understand what the Minister here said about safety being a crucial factor, but it is a minimal bar: children flourishing in education is what we all seek and I think that would be a better bar. I am sure that we all recognise, just as with mobile phones, that the question is not simply whether technology is safe but “What is it replacing?”

I was at a conference about AI in education a couple of weeks ago, and the overwhelming evidence was—as the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, mentioned—that many of the AI products currently available produced better results in tests, but then the children failed to retain what they had learned. The response at the conference, which was largely focused on putting AI into schools, was simply that the tech would get better. That is tantamount to asking children to teach AI, rather than AI teaching children.

I am sure that the Minister will remember that I had amendments in the same Bill on edtech and on standards for efficacy, et cetera. I recognise that the Government have chosen to do this in guidance, but I ask that they take a broader view on what we need to look at in edtech. Schools are places where children grow, not just learn, and where relationships, confidence and agency matter just as much as passing tests and measurable outcomes. I will again say that I welcome the Statement, but I ask the Minister to ensure that independent certification and the Government’s wider approach to technology in schools protect the things that most matter for a child’s development and cannot be readily measured.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for the work that she has been engaged in, alongside our officials, in the scope of the certification scheme. That has been welcomed. On the point about whether the focus is only on safety, I think we have a broad conception of safety in the standards against which the certification will be made.

For example, as I said, this will be certification against the standards, including our world-leading generative AI standards, which recognises that cognitive development of children is an important aspect to be considered when thinking in broad terms about safety. I do not think that the certification will have quite the narrow scope that the noble Baroness suggests, but I reiterate the point that we are interested not only in certification of products but in research on what is effective, how and where, and for whom—we are investing money in that—and we are looking forward for other uses of AI in education, where we will produce further guidance.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving us a chance to discuss the Statement. It is an odd thing. It starts off about mobile phones. There are three pages of it, and it stops talking about mobile phones after one-and-a-third pages, or one and a quarter, I think. When we are talking about educational technology, we are probably going to be covering assistive technology as well and SEN, and I remind the House yet again that I am a dyslexic. I am a dyslexic who needs assistive technology to write accurately. The assistive technology that I had at school was a person I had to dictate to. I am a big lad, but even I do not want to carry around another adult with me all the time.

Can we make sure that we allow people into the system by the use of technology? I am also chairman of Microlink PC. We are also making sure that those who have a disability can address it. The fact remains—I said this before, but I lost a Division on it—that the mobile phone is a wonderful platform for carrying assistive tech. Visual impairment and deafness can be addressed, to an extent, by it. New products are going out the whole time and, if I had longer, I would give your Lordships a commercial on some of the things that I have seen today.

Unless we get an assurance from the Government that they are going to use technology to allow people into the system, we are never going to address all the problems in special educational needs by means that grant independence and a way in. Also, I do not know if a Kindle is regarded as educational technology, but I am sure nobody here would accuse somebody of not reading properly if they read a book on a Kindle or via audio technology. Can the Minister take this opportunity to guarantee that the Government will allow people with special educational needs into the system by using technology whenever that is deemed appropriate and that it will be an ongoing process?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I think that the way that the noble Lord describes the issue as letting people in is very helpful in thinking about our approach more broadly to special educational needs and disability reform, where we want our schools and learning for children to be as inclusive as possible. One way, as the noble Lord frequently identifies, is through the use of assistive technology. I can assure him that that will be an important part of the SEND reforms and will be maintained through the guidance on the use of phones, as I think I have already set out.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I very much welcome this Statement, particularly the edtech safety certification that is in it, because it will support the very difficult decisions that schools are having to take about what to purchase next, how to purchase it and what they and their pupils should be doing with it. Before I ask my question, I want to say that I was slightly surprised by the noble Baroness, Lady Cash. Her championing of paper sounded a bit Luddite to me. If the weight of my granddaughter’s backpack is anything to go by, given the books and papers that she has in there, I think paper at her school plays a very large part in her education. However, her maths homework is set on the tablet that she does it on, and the fact that the homework is set online means that my daughter can watch, supervise and make sure that it gets done. I think that those are excellent uses.

The question I wanted to ask my noble friend was about young pupils whose parents cannot purchase the devices that they might need to help them with their education and whether there is some recognition that there is an inequality here that could be perpetuated by the use of technology. I know—I hope—that my Government are recognising that, as usual.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. She ably makes a point about the range of uses to which technology may well be put and the ways in which it may well, depending on the evidence—which of course we are developing—support children’s learning. She also makes an important point about the use of devices. Our view as a Government is that any expectations on students should not require them to purchase screens or digital devices, for precisely the reason that my noble friend outlined. To return to the noble Lord’s point, the use of technology has to include people, and not exclude them by virtue of their family background or their income at home.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome that the consultation on certification for technology covers early years settings. We made good progress on the Bill earlier this year on guidance for parents and carers of early years children and early years settings in terms of screen time and the use of technology. Can the Minister update us on two areas with regard to that? The first is what the DfE is doing to understand whether that guidance is reaching parents and carers, whether it is understood by them and whether they are changing their behaviour in any way on the back of it. The second is what progress the DfE is making on consulting on more substantive changes to the early years foundation stage statutory framework, following the welcome update in September, to link to updated guidance. The DfE committed to further changes looking not just at pedagogy but at safeguarding. It committed to implementing that by April 2027, so time is a bit tight if there needs to be consultation and other action along the way.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes two important points. On the first, early evidence on the impact of the screen time guidance is encouraging. Independent research from Internet Matters found that three in five parents of children of five and under had heard of the Government’s screen time guidance, and 88% found it helpful, while 94% said, after reviewing it, that they were already taking or planned to take action.

On the point about the early years framework, in July 2026, the department published screen use guidance for early years settings. That builds on the guidance for parents published in March 2026 and was produced with contributions from sector experts, including the Digital Standards for Early Years Children Action Group and the Early Years Screen Time Advisory Group. As the noble Baroness argued for, that guidance is designed to help early years settings support children’s healthy development, which evidence shows requires sufficient sleep, play, real-world interaction and responsive adult engagement, while ensuring any use of screens is purposeful, safe and appropriate. That statutory early years foundation stage framework came into force on 1 September 2026, and it requires early years practitioners to have regard to the screen use guidance in their setting. However, I suspect that the noble Baroness is right, as I suggested earlier, that in all these areas, as technology and evidence develops, we will want to return to this to make sure that, whatever age our children are and whatever setting they are in, their use of technology is informed by the very best evidence and is safe for all of them.

Sporting and Performing Arts Opportunities for Pupils in State Schools

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, we want all pupils to have access to sports and performing arts at school, supporting well-being, belonging, confidence and skills such as teamwork. Voluntary and community organisations are key in broadening access. Our enrichment framework encourages schools to work in partnership with them, and the enrichment expansion programme will support 400 schools in areas of greatest need to make links. PE and school sport partnerships and the National Centre for Arts Education will further support access.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Will she expand upon this? What are we doing to make sure that schools have the necessary testing ground or experience ground to mean that they can link with these groups outside? If you come to a sport and you do not know the basics, you are much less likely to go to an environment outside to take part in it. The same is true of the arts. What are we doing for a coherent plan to allow you to have the necessary grounding to access these groups?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

PE remains part of the national curriculum from key stage 1 to key stage 4. There are many sports organisations at local level—clubs, often supported by their national governing bodies—which will provide young people with that start and a welcome. Through the PE and school sport partnerships, we want better to join schools with the local and national sporting organisations that will help young people get the experience the noble Lord outlines.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, although they are pro bono positions, I declare my interests as a board member of the London Marathon Foundation and the Daily Mile Foundation. At a time when government data shows that fewer than half of children achieve the recommended 60 minutes of daily physical activity, the daily mile helps around 2 million children in England build such activity into the school day. Simple, inclusive and free, it is accessible to all children. The Minister referred to the new PE and school sport partnerships network. As that is established, will she work to ensure that schools are supported to embed everyday physical activity programmes, such as the daily mile, alongside PE and competitive sport, to get every child active, regardless of their background or ability?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a really important point about the whole range of ways that we can help children to be active. As she says, we do not yet have sufficient children meeting the Chief Medical Officer’s recommendation of 60 minutes of activity every day. The daily mile is an excellent example of how schools can, quite simply and straightforwardly, increase the activity children are engaged in. It is exactly the type of partnership we want to promote.

[Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, the aim of the Young Creatives Commission—I declare an interest as a member—is to promote and rebuild youth access to the arts and creativity, on a par with sport. It will publish its final report in January. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that its recommendations will be helpful, and will she agree to a meeting between the commission, DfE and DCMS to discuss progressing that agenda?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, while I have not seen the detail of that work, I am sure that it will be very helpful. I know that the work that DfE and DCMS have been doing together on this will be informed by the meeting the noble Baroness suggests. It is, of course, in order to promote arts education that we established this September the National Centre for Arts Education, but we are keen to hear further ideas about how we ensure that children can access a rich, high-quality arts education and other opportunities.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, there is a community arts project aspect to this, as such projects should act in support of what happens in schools. Does the Minister agree that the local council and council-owned facilities—we had a question earlier on the relationship between local government and the arts—are hugely important at a time when too many council-owned assets, including buildings, are being sold off?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The most effective education in both arts and sports will need to use the broadest range of organisations and facilities, as the noble Earl says. We need to make sure we are building as many links as possible into schools, and I know that councils will be considering this when thinking about the use of their assets. Equally, of course, schools facilities should be used by others who can access them for sports and arts. Unless we work effectively together, we will not be using the resource that we have as well as possible to open up those opportunities to the most people, including both schoolchildren and those of us getting a bit older who also benefit from those activities.

[The Lord Bishop of Leicester]

My Lords, the holiday activities and food programme is a shining example of the approach described by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. It offers a proven way of linking up children from disadvantaged backgrounds with a wide range of enriching activities during the school holidays. However, the current eligibility criteria result in more than 500,000 children, mostly from poorer working families, being unable to access the programme. Will the Minister commit to rectifying this by aligning the programme’s eligibility criteria with those that are attached to term-time free school meals?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate is right that the HAF programme has provided both food and activities for very many children and young people. While we have provided 21 million days to children and young people in England, which have been delivered across 153 local authorities, notwithstanding the £600 million that has been committed to it, we need to look carefully at how we get that to as many children as possible. I cannot commit to changing the entitlement rules but I will take back the points that the right reverend Prelate has made on that programme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, partnerships with independent schools have often led to sharing of sports facilities, as well as expertise in music, drama and dance. However, the imposition of VAT has been devastating for many small specialist schools which have contributed greatly to opportunities for state school pupils. A number have had to close or curtail their outreach offers. Will the Government review their VAT demands on small specialist independent schools to enable them to survive and continue their valuable work with the state schools?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As we have discussed on several occasions in this House, the impact of VAT on schools has not led to a higher number of schools closing than the trajectory over recent years. I agree with the noble Baroness that, where strong partnerships are built between private and state schools, they open up opportunities. While there are some good examples of that, I am still not sure—given that I worked on this the first time I was in the Department for Education—that this is on the scale we would want to see.

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

My Lords, if we want more children to have access to sport and physical activity, we need to make better use of existing facilities. The Opening School Facilities programme helped open nearly 1,900 schools to their local communities but ended in March 2025. Given the demand from organisations which are keen to deliver activities, I ask the Minister to reconsider renewing the highly successful programme.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I will come back to the noble Baroness about the specifics of that programme. It is a key part of the Government’s new PE partnership network that we will be able to create those links between local clubs, sporting organisations and schools. I am sure that the partnership will want to look carefully at whatever the most effective way of doing that is.

[Lord Isaac (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government’s decision to scrap the EBacc is very welcome. However, the impact of the EBacc on arts provision in schools will not be reversed overnight. What specific steps are the Government proposing to take to ensure that schools place greater value and emphasis on arts subjects, including performing arts, within the curriculum? If we do not support the performing arts, where will future “Celebrity Traitors” come from?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

There might be some noble Lords who would quite like that—being in an environment where nobody can trust what anybody else is saying, and people getting booted out. Perhaps that is more down the other end of the Palace.

My noble friend makes a really important point about how we can promote arts education. That is the reason why we have established the National Centre for Arts Education. It will play a pivotal role in delivering the Government’s ambition to revitalise arts in schools, so that every child can access a rich, high-quality arts education. It will do that through providing strategic national leadership with a coalition of national, regional and local partners. It will support excellent teaching in our schools through a new online CPD offer and making sure there is full access to existing high-quality teacher development provision. It will promote arts education to school leaders, teachers, parents and young people, including how to progress in the arts and pursue interests and career aspirations.

Vocational GCSEs

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what empirical evidence underpins the Secretary of State for Education’s assertion that the introduction of vocational GCSEs will not lead to disadvantaged pupils being disproportionately steered towards vocational or non-academic pathways; and what measures they will take to safeguard against any perception of lowered expectations.

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

My Lords, this approach to developing technical routes and vocational GCSEs is not about separating pupils into academic or vocational routes at age 14; rather, it is about widening pupils’ choices and supporting coherent progression into a range of academic and technical post-16 options. The new technical education routes will provide every young person with a clear path into further study, apprenticeships or skilled work by combining academic excellence in core subjects with rigorous vocationally focused qualifications of equal parity and esteem as traditional GCSEs.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I am not sure I heard in the Minister’s Answer any of the robust evidence that I asked for, but I accept the Government’s intentions. The Government have justified their pivot towards generic skills and vocational routes by suggesting that a knowledge-based academic curriculum has contributed to the high level of NEETs among our young people. Given that education is devolved and that Wales and Scotland have pursued these vocational routes for many years and their levels of NEETs are higher than ours, will the Minister concede that stripping academic rigour from our classrooms is a false remedy to a structural economic problem?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Evidence actually suggests that the existing technical awards are taken slightly more often by disadvantaged pupils. That is one of the reasons why we are reforming the system so that pupils’ choices are driven by their interests and aspirations, rather than their background. The noble Baroness suggested that this Government have said that knowledge is not important in the curriculum. That is wholly wrong. As the noble Baroness will see when we publish our curriculum plans, following the Curriculum and Assessment Review, we have been clear throughout that knowledge is a key element of the curriculum. But it is possible to deliver high-quality academic standards and deep knowledge alongside the opportunity for pupils also to develop vocational and technical skills in a way that provides a broad and deep curriculum that is currently missing.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, will the Minister give us some indication of what advice the Government are giving not only to pupils but to the parents of these pupils about the value of these new qualifications? If we are to get people taking subjects they have an aptitude for, as opposed to what is seen to be the desirable thing by somebody else, we will need to make sure that people understand that process.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point. We will consult on the content and nature of vocational GCSEs very soon, this autumn. Because this is about technical pathways delivered and developed at a local and regional level, we are also working closely with mayoral authorities, employers and others. I am sure that they, as we do, will want to ensure that there is strong advice for parents and clear information about what it means to take a vocational GCSE as part of that broad curriculum.

[Lord Roe of West Wickham (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as the chair of the Building Safety Regulator. I think it is fair to say that it is well understood across both sides of this House that the construction economy is one of the most important parts of our wider economy. It employs 2 million people, but it will run about 40,000 construction workers short every year between now and 2030. I know that the new proposed vocational GCSE for building construction has been widely welcomed by the industry, but what specific work is being done to ensure that the curriculum and syllabus are built on the needs of the industry and in conjunction with the industry?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important point. These qualifications must align with and be informed by what the industry sees as important, because that is what provides the opportunity for the young person to know that they are on a pathway that can lead to good work. That will be a key element of the consultation starting soon.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, as with the UTC Question last week, the Government are in danger of asking questions that they should know the answer to. Does the Minister agree that there already is an intellectually rigorous vocational subject? It is called design and technology, and I teach it. All they need to do is reopen the workshops, recruit specialist teachers and get parity of esteem with parents and metrics.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Lord does a very good job of delivering design and technology classes. He will have noted that, in response to the Curriculum and Assessment Review, the Government have been clear that we want to create both more space and more value to some of the courses that have been lost over previous years. In delivering this broad curriculum, we want to be clear—this will be part of the consultation—about what is necessary in terms of equipment, the estate of the school and the training of teachers.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, I fear the Minister misheard the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, who criticised the Government not on the academic curriculum but for saying said that it had contributed to the number of NEETs. The Government are on record as saying that. It is of real concern to many educationalists, who have already seen a focus on skills in Scotland and Wales accelerate the number of NEETs there. How will the Government assess and monitor whether disadvantaged pupils with good results at age 11 are more likely to be entered for a vocational GCSE than a better-off pupil with the same results, which is steering and lowering expectations? We are very keen to understand how the Government will ensure that does not happen.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am very happy to go back and look at the record, but I think the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said that the Government had said that a knowledge-based curriculum—well, let us look at the record.

My point remains that we are providing for a strong and deep academic curriculum alongside options for students to study more technical and vocational courses. The noble Baroness makes an important point, and with the evidence, some of which I have already cited, and the work we do in developing vocational GCSEs, we want to be very clear that this is providing higher standards and better opportunities for all students. We will make sure that that is part of the development, monitoring and evaluation.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I will just follow up on the issue of monitoring and evaluation, in particular on the collection of data. Previously, we have heard the Conservative Front Bench talk about disadvantaged young people, but I want to add young people from minority backgrounds and young people with special educational needs. Will the Government collect data on those young people to see what level of take-up they have by region and to ensure that young people from those backgrounds are not being disproportionately funnelled toward vocational GCSEs rather than the more academic route? Will the Government commit to publishing that data?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

To be clear, every student will continue to do English, maths and science. That is a really important element of the academic opportunities that are open to them. It is important that these vocational GCSEs sit within technical pathways that are developed at a regional level and therefore are much more likely to be able to recognise the needs and opportunities for young people within those areas. That too will be part of the evaluation.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that many students were disadvantaged by the previous straitjacket of a curriculum that did not allow for anything like enough access to creative subjects and allowed perilously small access to technical subjects? Does she also agree, therefore, that widening the possibility for all young people is an extremely good idea?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, I do agree with my noble friend. That was also the conclusion of the independent Curriculum and Assessment Review, on which the Government will bring forward proposals in the near future. I reiterate that the requirement to continue with English, maths and science, to put vocational GCSEs alongside rigorous academic subjects where that makes sense for the students, is an important part of our proposals. Another is ensuring that these new qualifications meet the highest possible standards, being based on nationally set criteria—which current technical awards are not—and being available for all students. They should be something not that students are funnelled into but that open doors and opportunities for them.

Artificial Intelligence Tools: Schools

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berger]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to publish a single, government-approved list of artificial intelligence tools that meet minimum safeguarding and data protection standards for use in schools.

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

My Lords, the Government are focused on ensuring that technology used in education is safe and trustworthy, through generative AI product safety standards, updated guidance and a planned consultation on introducing safety certification for higher-risk products. Such certification would lead to a published list of child-facing generative AI tools which have been certified as meeting safety criteria, including data protection and safeguarding, for use in education settings.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, edtech is largely untested and we do not yet know the full impact of it on our children in schools. A school choosing an AI tool can struggle to judge whether it meets those safeguarding and data protection standards. A recent ICO audit of 28 edtech providers found that around 70% of their agreements with schools lacked the legally required detail. The edtech businesses could not provide evidence that the schools using their platforms had authorised reuse of student data for their own purposes. Can my noble friend the Minister, in light of her reply, say what additional practical support the Government can provide today to schools to ensure that children’s safety is not harmed by these tools?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We have already updated the standards that apply to those tools, but my noble friend makes the important point that a fast-moving market, as that for edtech is, needs more than that. That is precisely why we want to consult on certificating products, so that it can be much clearer to schools, at any given time, which products are certificated. That certification would also take into consideration both data protection and safeguarding issues.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned that the Government plan to consult on the certification of edtech and generative AI products. Can she give us a timetable for that consultation? Similarly, the Government announced that there would be sovereign education benchmarks, but no timetable that I am aware of has been announced. Can she confirm that AI products used in education will be independently assessed against those benchmarks?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We intend to launch the consultation and certification framework very soon—this autumn. I will come back to the noble Baroness about the AI sovereign benchmarks. I understand that they are already operationalised, but I will respond specifically respond to that point.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as an adviser to DLA Piper on AI regulation and policy. A list of safe tools can tell us what to avoid. What is the Government’s vision for what AI in schools can achieve for children? Will they adopt a human flourishing test for AI in schools? That would mean asking not just whether a tool avoids harm but whether it independently improves children’s learning, curiosity, critical thinking and agency.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I wish the noble Lord a very happy birthday. Of course, he is right. That is why we need different elements of protection and, as he rightly said, promotion. The certification would enable schools more quickly and easily to see the edtech products that met the standards. In January, we strengthened our product safety standards both to reflect emerging risks and developments in AI technologies and to ensure that AI supports genuine learning and does not undermine children’s ability to think, learn and develop independently. The certification scheme enables the development by legitimate edtech companies of the type of technology which will help to support children’s learning.

[The Lord Bishop of Hereford]

My Lords, a number of noble Lords have already asked questions about the regulation of AI in schools. Would it be Ofsted that inspected schools and how they govern their use of artificial intelligence, including the safeguards they have in place to protect pupils and manage the use of personal data? If so, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that Ofsted inspectors have the expertise and guidance necessary to make such assessments effectively?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Of course, Ofsted will have an important role to play in ensuring the safeguarding responsibility of schools with respect to AI as well as its appropriate use in the classroom. There is also a role for the Information Commissioner’s Office in the protection of data. As I have already identified, it would not be appropriate for Ofsted, for example, to be the organisation that holds the certification process. That is another area where there will be support for ensuring that what happens is right, safe and effective, and a way of ensuring that schools are following the certification and the guidance that already exist.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, we had a brilliant debate on this very subject on Thursday, and the PISA data is clear: it shows that pupils using the most technology throughout their school day suffer worse results, with those who used computers for over six hours in a day scoring 66 points lower than their peers who did not use the technology. Will the Government act on this to ensure that children in our schools do not suffer through overuse of this educational technology?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, of course it is the case, but we need to ensure that we harness the positive opportunities that come from AI and educational technology and avoid the risks—which certainly need to be managed very carefully—in our schools. That is the reason for the breadth of initiatives being taken by the Government. It is the reason for the update of the generative AI product safety standards, which have specific protections relating to cognitive development, emotional and social development, mental health and manipulative design, reflecting areas where children may be particularly vulnerable. I do not believe that there is anybody in this House who does not believe that there are opportunities that AI can bring into our schools for teachers and learners. The Government are working hard to get that balance right.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, alongside their positive role within the education system, many parents and children will choose online and AI tools to support their learning outside of the classroom. My noble friend Lord Tarassenko has pointed out that it is a bit of a minefield. It is difficult for parents to assess which of those tools are likely to be the most efficacious. Are there any plans for the Department for Education to help parents by perhaps rating those tools on their effectiveness in supporting children who have particular educational needs?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Once the certification is in place, I suspect that will be broadly available for parents to see. We are already starting the process of developing screen use guidance for five to 18 year-olds, which will gather evidence from experts on how screen use affects children and young people. That will make new, practical evidence-based guidance available for parents in the coming months.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, what response has the Department for Education given to the 130 early years experts and educators who wrote to the Secretary of State in September raising concerns about the digital reception baseline assessment, including that it is inconsistent with the guidance on early years screen time, which the Government have already developed and are building on with their work for over-fives now?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The reception baseline assessment does not contradict the department’s screen use guidance. It is a short, one-off assessment during which a pupil may use the screen for around 12 minutes, which is significantly less than the maximum one hour per day recommended. The content is slow-paced and safe. It was tested under the previous Government, with experts in early years, SEN and inclusion involved in its development, and there were extensive trials with thousands of reception-age pupils. It is not something that a young child would use on their own; it is administered by a teacher, and the pupil will never be alone with the device. It provides a more effective, well-tested way of getting that baseline assessment of where a child is when they come into school, which is so important to enable them to make progress while they are in school.

Independent Schools: Tax Changes

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for securing this debate and for the long-standing interest he has taken in independent schools and the families they serve. It is very good to have him back on the Benches, and I wish him well.

I will respond fully and with evidence to the points raised. Before I do, I will comment that, while I understand there are very strong views about this issue, I cannot help thinking that, more characteristically for this House, it might have been better with a bit less questioning of the character and motives of me and my colleagues—verging in one case on unparliamentary language, in my view.

The Motion before us asks this House to take note of the impact of VAT and other tax changes on private schools since 1 January 2025. It is right that we should do so. These were significant reforms, debated extensively inside and outside Parliament before their introduction, and it is entirely proper that we continue to scrutinise their effects. The Government’s position, however, remains clear. Education is central to our mission to break down barriers to opportunity. We want every child, regardless of background, circumstance or where they happen to live, to have access to an excellent education. That means ensuring that public funding is directed where it can have the greatest impact and that difficult decisions about taxation are taken fairly and responsibly. It was for that reason that the Government ended the VAT exemption on private school fees from 1 January 2025 and removed charitable business rates relief from private schools in England from April 2025.

As the Government set out at the 2024 Budget, these measures combined would raise more than £1.8 billion a year by 2029-30 to help support investment in public services, including education. The Government remain confident in these costings, which were certified by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. In November 2025, the OBR revised the expected yield up slightly by an average of £40 million per year, so these measures are raising more than was expected when they were announced. This was, of course, also a manifesto commitment.

The Government set out in their manifesto a range of ways in which the revenue earned would be used. While it is not possible to directly link this spending, as it is non-hypothecated, it is appropriate to identify some of the links between those areas identified in the manifesto and increased spending and provision. We are spending more than has been raised to improve our schools and deliver on our commitment to the 94% of children who attend state schools. We are increasing our overall core schools budget by £2.3 billion in 2026-27. We have now achieved 71.6% of our target of recruiting 6,500 additional teachers. There are now 4,654 more teachers: 3,008 more teachers in secondary and special schools in 2025-26, and 1,646 more teachers in further education than in 2024-25. This year, we are investing £18 billion in post-16 education and skills. That includes funding for careers and work experience, with over £86.4 million of funding for careers-related activities.

In July 2025, we announced that funded support for the Nuffield Early Language Intervention programme would continue for a further four academic years. We are building and expanding nurseries in schools by providing £82 million of capital funding to over 600 primary and maintained nursery schools across phases 1 and 2 of the school-based nursery programme, which will create over 11,000 new nursery places by September 2027. As of March 2026, 60% of pupils in schools and learners in further education in England are covered by a mental health support team. As part of the national youth strategy, the Government are committed to establishing 50 Young Futures hubs by March 2029. These are all things that we said in our manifesto we would do, and we have done them.

I say at the outset that the Government recognise the valuable contribution many private schools make to our national life. Private schools educate hundreds of thousands of children, provide specialist provision, deliver bursaries and scholarships, and work in partnership with state schools and local communities. Nothing in these reforms was intended to undermine those contributions, and nothing in the Government’s approach seeks to remove parental choice. I also understand the international impact of our private school sector. That is why, in Saudi Arabia earlier this week, I raised it and pushed for further opportunities for our private schools.

The question before us is not whether private schools make a contribution; they undoubtedly do. The question is whether it is right that private education should continue to benefit from tax breaks that are not available to most other goods and services. This Government concluded that it was not. It is important to place recent changes in their proper context. The Government always expected that applying VAT to private school fees would lead to some movement of pupils into the state sector. That was explicitly factored into our analysis before the policy was introduced. Our estimate remains that around 35,000 pupils may move into state-funded education over the course of this Parliament. That represents fewer than 0.5% of the state school population.

At the same time, we must recognise the wider demographic picture. Falling birth rates are affecting pupil numbers across the education system. The latest available data show that overall pupil numbers have fallen across all sectors, not solely within private schools. It would therefore be wrong to attribute every change in enrolment solely to the introduction of VAT. The evidence points to a combination of factors, including demographics, local market conditions and broader economic pressures. As Ministers have consistently stated, the trends seen thus far remain broadly consistent with the assumptions underpinning the original policy.

It is, of course, sad when any school closes. I understand the impact on parents, children and communities. School closures, however, can be influenced by a range of factors, not just the VAT policy. Although we accept that VAT may have compounded pressure already on private schools, closures cannot be attributed to it alone. Private schools, like other organisations, can close for a number of reasons. Demographic change, financial sustainability, governance issues, regulatory concerns and mergers have all contributed to school closures long before these reforms were introduced. Given my understanding particularly of the history of Malvern St James, I thought that at least a couple of the examples used by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, were perhaps not the best examples of the impact of VAT and possibly had more to do with the new ownership of those schools.

The Government’s assessment remains that closure rates are within historical patterns and do not demonstrate systemic failure across the sector. On average, 75 private schools closed per year over the 20 years before the tax changes. A total of 60 schools closed in the 2024-25 school year and 67 closed in 2025-26—below the average of previous years. We also note that private schools have continued to open. The picture is therefore considerably more nuanced than some commentary has suggested.

The Government have continued to monitor place availability closely. There remains substantial spare capacity across the school system, with hundreds of thousands of unfilled places nationally across primary and secondary schools. In England, overall pupil numbers have declined by 1.2% between 2025 and 2026, so state-funded primary and secondary schools have fewer pupils and sufficient capacity. For the new school year, 98.7% of applications to primary school led to an offer from one of the preferred schools, and the same is true for 96.4% of secondary applications. Both those figures represent an improvement on last year.

Local authorities retain statutory responsibility for securing sufficient school places and continue to plan effectively for local demand. To date, no authority has suggested that pupil movements associated with these reforms have created pressures that cannot be managed within existing arrangements. The Government therefore remain confident that the state sector can accommodate any additional pupils arising from the policy. That reflects the position that Ministers have consistently set out to Parliament.

Concerns about children with special educational needs deserve careful consideration, and I recognise the points that the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, made, not only in his contribution today but in previous debates and, as he says, in his Questions. The Government have always recognised that children with SEND can require highly specialised provision and that stability of placement is particularly important. That is precisely why protections exist for children whose private school placement is named in an education, health and care plan and funded by a local authority. In such circumstances, local authorities are able to reclaim the VAT incurred. Those arrangements remain in place and continue to provide protection for some of the most vulnerable children in our education system. We will continue to monitor outcomes closely and remain committed to improving support for children and young people with SEND wherever they are educated.

I note that the tax changes in fact have not led to fewer pupils with SEND at private schools. Indeed, the number has increased slightly. That includes those without EHCPs, the number of whom at mainstream independent schools has grown from fewer than 98,000 in January 2024 to over 101,000 in January 2026.

The majority of children with SEND attend state-funded schools, and we want every child to have the best start in life, with help available earlier and locally when families need it. Every Child Achieving and Thriving, the schools White Paper published in February, set out our intentions. We will ensure children get the right support in their early-years setting, school and college. We will invest in new training for all staff and better buildings and equipment and make sure that every setting has access to expert professional support when it is needed. We will create a new offer for children who need additional support, called “targeted” and “targeted plus” layers. Children in early-years settings, mainstream schools and colleges can benefit from education and health professionals without long waits for assessments. For children and young people with complex needs, we are developing new specialist provision packages, designed with experts and tested with parents, to set out exactly what support and resources are required for specific needs. Parents should of course be able to choose where their children are educated, but we must move away from a system that forces the parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities to feel they have to move their children, where they can afford to do so. We will restore parents’ trust in the SEND system. These changes will be introduced gradually, but we are investing £7 billion more on SEND compared to 2025-26.

What matters now is that we continue to examine the evidence carefully, as noble Lords have called for today. The Government have done so throughout implementation and will continue to do so. We will keep monitoring pupil movements, school capacity, school closures, SEND provision and the wider health of the sector. Where concerns arise, they will be considered seriously and responsibly. However, after more than a year of implementation, the evidence available to us does not suggest that the fundamental assumptions behind the policy were misplaced. The education system continues to function effectively, state schools continue to have capacity, the independent sector continues to educate hundreds of thousands of pupils and the reforms continue to support the Government’s objective of raising funding to improve opportunities for children and young people across the country.

Once again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for bringing this important issue before the House and allowing me to respond with evidence and a commitment to ensuring that we continue monitoring this policy.

Education and Skills Reform

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for this debate on education and skills policy because ultimately it comes down to one question: are we giving every young person the opportunity to build a good-quality life regardless of where they come from?

There is much in our education system of which we should be proud. As we heard earlier, the latest PISA results show that the United Kingdom remains one of the highest-performing education systems in the world, particularly around science, mathematics and reading. Our performance in science has improved since 2022, and we need to acknowledge these achievements. However, we also have to recognise that academic success alone is not enough. The ONS has estimated that more than 1 million young people aged 16 to 24 are currently not in education, employment or training—a figure that has increased over the past year. Alan Milburn’s review, which many of us have spoken about, warns that, without action, one in six young people could be NEET within the next five years. That should be a wake-up call to all of us.

We need an education and skills system that works for young people who want to go to university, but equally for young people who want to become engineers, electricians, nurses, technicians and skilled professionals. The Government’s reforms to post-16 pathways have the potential to provide greater choice, including V-levels and occupational certificates, but choice exists only if young people have access to a genuine range of choices. My concern is that technical education must not become a second-tier route, disproportionately taken by children from poorer backgrounds while affluent families continue to choose the traditional academic pathways. There must be parity of esteem between academic and technical education and, crucially, the ability to move between the two pathways.

A 16 year-old should not be expected to make a decision that permanently determines their future. That is why careers advice is so important. Every young person should have access to high-quality careers guidance and meaningful work experience—an issue that I have often mentioned in your Lordships’ Chamber—so that choices are informed by aspiration and opportunity rather than postcode or family income. We also need to ask whether the system has the capacity to deliver these ambitions. Technical education requires teachers, lecturers, specialist facilities and strong links with employers, yet colleges are already under pressure to recruit and retain staff with the specialist skills required. How will the Government ensure that colleges have the workforce and the funding necessary to deliver these reforms? Will the Minister commit to addressing the disparities in pay and conditions that are making recruitment and retention more difficult?

Apprenticeships must be central to this debate. They can provide a powerful bridge between education and employment, but employers, in particular small and medium-sized businesses, need a system that is simpler, more flexible and financially viable. I welcome the Government’s move towards greater flexibility in the apprenticeship levy, but we should go further: make apprenticeships more attractive, ensure that apprentices are properly paid and give smaller businesses practical support to take on more. We also need regional flexibility. A young person in a rural community should have access to the same breadth of opportunities as someone in a major city. That would require proper workforce planning and greater involvement from regions and employers.

We cannot discuss education and skills reform without mentioning SEND. Too many families are still fighting for support while councils struggle with the financial consequences of a broken system. Reform must put children and families at its centre. That means early identification, sufficient specialist and mainstream provision, a properly funded workforce and meaningful rights to appeal for parents.

Skills are not simply about filling vacancies; they are about giving people the confidence, knowledge and opportunities to shape their own future. If these reforms are to succeed, we need an education system that does not divide young people into winners and losers, academic or vocational, advantaged or disadvantaged. We need a system that says to every young person: your background does not determine your future, and, whatever route you choose, we will give you the opportunity to succeed. That should be the ambitions of education and skills reforms.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their questions. I will turn to the specific points that have been raised in a moment, but, before I do, it is worth briefly reiterating the context of the Secretary of State’s Statement last week. At its heart was a simple proposition: every young person should be able to see a clear pathway from education into further learning, skilled work and adult life.

Our education system has many strengths. The latest PISA results confirmed England’s strong performance in reading, mathematics and science. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, that that should be reflected in our thanks to the hard-working staff in our schools who have helped to deliver that, but it also builds on the work of successive Governments. I am very proud of the role that I played in the previous Labour Government, alongside some of my noble friends here today, in the focus on numeracy and literacy, the introduction of phonics and the support to ensure school improvement across the system. I recognise that many of those elements were built on successfully by the previous Government.

However, there is a slight flavour in the Opposition’s response to this Statement, both in this House and in the other place, that somehow we should now place in aspic the education system and not recognise the areas where, notwithstanding the progress, there is more work to be done. I am afraid that a disadvantage gap still exists for our children, and it is stubbornly wide. A gap between regions is widening. We have a growing SEND crisis, 1.5 million children persistently absent from school at the last general election, a doubling of those educated at home since 2019 and now 1 million young people, all educated during the last 16 years, not in education, employment or training. Simply standing still and resting on our laurels will not be good enough for our children.

The purpose of these reforms is therefore to build a nationally coherent, locally responsive education and skills system that supports opportunity, responds to local labour market needs and creates stronger progression routes for young people. Central to that ambition is a new approach to technical and vocational education. Academic, technical and vocational routes should be complementary parts of a single high-quality offer with stronger connections to employment. New technical pathways from age 14 will combine technical qualifications alongside GCSEs, careers education and meaningful work experience, helping young people to progress into further study, apprenticeships and skilled careers. Alongside that, mayors, local leaders, schools, colleges and employers will work together to develop those high-quality technical and vocational routes for 16 to 19 year-olds, aligned to local economic opportunities and the Government’s industrial strategy.

These reforms are designed to widen opportunity, not to narrow it, ensuring that technical excellence is recognised and valued alongside academic achievement, and that every young person can see a clear route to success. That is why I have to rebut the suggestion by the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, that this Government are dismantling the system. Actually, we are aiming to ensure that the high standards we can achieve for a lot of children—although not all—in our academic education are matched by high standards for those who want to take a more technical or vocational route, and that the opportunity to do that at the age of 14 by combining GCSEs with technical qualifications is made much more widely available to young people than is the case at the moment. That is not a dismantling of our system; it is building on what is good but ensuring that technical and vocational education has the support and the priority that many people in this House think it should have.

Furthermore, we are not talking about abolishing resits. We are talking about abolishing the situation where young people, without the additional support that they need, resit in a way that simply promotes their feeling of failure. That is why we are investing in teaching in further education, and it is why we are introducing a new level 1 stepping-stone qualification in order to enable young people to get the foundation that will then enable them to go on to successfully resit their GCSEs.

On some of the detailed questions about the 14-16 technical route, first, as I think I have made clear, this is not about separating pupils into academic and vocational groups or narrowing choices. All pupils will continue to study a broad and balanced curriculum. We are drawing on evidence from the interim Milburn review, the Curriculum and Assessment Review and engagement with strategic authorities, employers, schools, colleges and other partners as we develop those pathways. They will be rolled out using the existing level 1 and 2 technical awards that are already available. We will also work with Ofqual and other key partners to develop top-quality vocational and technical qualifications, which support—to respond to the noble Baroness—progression to T-levels, A-levels, V-levels, apprenticeships, university and beyond. Those qualifications will continue to sit alongside GCSEs and provide a high-quality option at key stage 4.

As that work progresses, the DfE will consider how to use its existing budgets to best support delivery, including through reprioritising budgets to ensure investment in high-quality education and clearer routes into skilled work. We are already making a difference to the number of teachers we are recruiting but, of course, we recognise the challenge to ensure that the expertise is there to deliver on this.

The noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, is right about careers guidance and work experience. He is right about apprenticeships, which is why we are already going further with support for employers. He is also right about reform of the special educational needs system, which is why we will bring forward the results of our consultation. We are already investing in the SEND system. We will have plenty of time in this House to discuss this Government’s reform programme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I know that the Minister has taken a very positive attitude towards strengthening the status of kinship carers. The Government have also introduced pilot programmes. Both have a capacity to help in bringing forward the work which is spoken of in the Statement. Could she give a rather fuller account of what the Government are doing on kinship carers? If that takes more time than we have available today, could she write to me? She and her colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, have played a very positive role in this important area.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. He is right that we are seeking ways to support kinship carers, to strengthen the opportunity for children to live with those who are close to them in those arrangements. We are also taking action to support the educational outcomes of children who are in kinship care. I think I am right in saying that we are expanding the role of virtual head teachers to those children. I will certainly write to the noble Lord with more detail about our plan.

[Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the emphasis that the Government are placing on work experience. Might the Minister like to say a bit more about how the Government plan to deliver this? It is clear that work experience will be available both to students below and post-16. With the two funding streams that will now cover those areas and the extra responsibility that will be put on schools, can she give an absolute assurance that there be equality of opportunity for children from all backgrounds and that the extra work will not fall merely on schools? I think back to something which was called the business education partnership, which offered a brokerage service which meant that greater access for everyone was available and schools were not overburdened.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is right. The opportunity for high-quality work experience is a very important theme in these reforms. The Government are committed to offering two weeks of work experience for every child pre-16, starting from an early age, with different ways to engage with employers. It is an important part of that work. She is also right that, given the ambition we have post-16 for T-level placements and other work experience opportunities, we need to support, for example, our mayoral and strategic authorities to be able to broker those links locally. My noble friend’s ideas about support for brokerage are very important and something we are reflecting hard on.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

Given the need for more work experience, more apprenticeships and other support from the private sector, will the Government look again at the very damaging tax rises and regulatory changes they have introduced, which have driven down vacancies in a big way and driven up unemployment? They impede success for this programme.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Of course, we will keep the business environment under review to ensure that it provides as many opportunities as possible. I note that, in his interim review, Alan Milburn argued that it was not, for example, changes to national insurance or to the national minimum wage that have caused the numbers of young people to be out of work. The biggest increase in those numbers, of course, happened in the two years in the run-up to the last general election.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of interests as regards City of London College. Within the Statement, the Government commit to transferring responsibility and finance for 16 to 19 year-olds to mayors and, presumably, to strategic authorities, but, to date, local authorities have sometimes been quite inconsistent in their support and taken a very differential approach, for instance, to young people who are in danger of becoming NEETs but do not reach the level of an EHCP. How do the Government intend to move forward while ensuring that there is consistent and full access to pathways for all pupils and that equal opportunities are provided for every young person, irrespective of where they come from?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

If I am completely frank, this is one of the big challenges of the very welcome devolution that this Government under the new Prime Minister are engaged in. We are discussing with mayors and others the relationship between national entitlements and the flexibility, for example, to bring in work experience opportunities, to work with local employers and to tailor education so that it suits the types of work and opportunities that might be available to young people locally, while ensuring there is equality of access. A key objective of this Government is to close, not to worsen, the disadvantage gap. As we develop the devolution proposals, we will keep thinking hard about how we can ensure that that happens.

[Lord John of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, even in the world where we are ruled by robots, it is entirely likely that genuine human creativity and culture will have an important part to play in the future of our economy. In her Statement last week, the Secretary of State mentioned drama, but can my noble friend tell us about the wider cultural opportunities that these reforms might bring forth, perhaps in music, dance and film?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

An important part of our Curriculum and Assessment Review was finding time within a curriculum, that still focuses on the knowledge necessary for children to succeed, for broader opportunities to undertake music, drama and PE—some of those human skills and opportunities that are so important to our children, as my noble friend says. In this House, we have discussed a range of ways in which we are supporting the development of opportunities for music and dance.

I will also respond at this point to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, about accountability measures. In removing the requirement for children to study within the straitjacket of the former EBacc accountability measures, we have freed up schools to reintroduce some of those music, drama and other qualifications that had been squeezed out by it. Of course, at the moment, while we consult about the changes that we want to make to Progress 8, it remains in place.

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

My Lords, there clearly is a tide of opinion in favour of devolving funding. The Statement in the other place was absolutely clear. It said:

“For the first time, mayors will have control of the 16-19 education budget”.


This is causing some concern. Can the Minister tell the House whether that includes control of the expenditure of the apprenticeship levy for 16 to 18 year-olds, and does it extend to classroom-based provision for them?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Obviously, we are still working on the details of that but no, it does not extend to the growth and skills levy provision for apprenticeships for 16 to 18 year-olds. It will cover the 16 to 19 budget as it applies, for example, to post-16 qualifications, including classroom provision in colleges.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a working teacher and I beg the House to wish me luck in teaching jollof rice to year 8s tomorrow. I broadly welcome this Statement and its ambitions, but I am slightly confused. The Becky Francis review promised us “evolution not revolution”, while the new Secretary of State has said there will be “an education revolution”. Has the curriculum review been superseded and are we evolving or revolting?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I have no doubt that, with the noble Lord’s skills, year 8 will thoroughly enjoy jollof rice and come out of his class with renewed enthusiasm for cooking and, I hope, a whole range of other things.

As I made clear in my first answer, we are building on the successes of the last 30 years in our education system but we are recognising, as Becky Francis did in the Curriculum and Assessment Review, where we have overly narrowed the curriculum. In some cases, we have forced out things that many people would consider to be important skills and opportunities for young people. We will reintroduce those, but we are also determined to do something that many previous Governments have expressed a commitment to, yet none has really delivered so far, including me in my former incarnation: genuinely good, high-quality, high-standard technical and vocational opportunities for young people. That is one of the opportunities that we have through these reforms and it is an important part of the focus of the work that we are doing.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, while I welcome many of the aspects of this Statement and much of what my noble friend the Minister said, I still feel that it lacks an overall strategy in relation to future changes of demands on the employment and skills markets. In particular, will the Government produce a strategy which is central to their economic policy and deals with the impact that AI will have on the employment and skills requirements in the medium term? One does not have to be a total pessimist and say that AI is going to destroy millions of jobs, but it will change millions of them dramatically, not least entry-level jobs. Will there be a strategy from the department for dealing with AI and its impact on the needs of our education and skills system?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It is precisely in order to equip children to respond to the changing needs in the labour market that we are making some of these changes, but those build, of course, on the introduction by this Government of Skills England. I hope that my noble friend will have seen some of the important work that Skills England has done on the way in which AI skills will be necessary for the future workforce, and how they are likely to change the nature of the skills that young people and, in fact, adults need. The Government have responded to that through additional skills training to support not just young people but people throughout their lives to develop those AI skills. I agree that this is a wide-ranging challenge to both the labour market and our education system and that more work needs to be done, but we have certainly made an important start.

[Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interest with respect to Access Creative College. Only last month, the Government implemented substantial reforms to the apprenticeship levy by transforming it into the growth and skills levy, increasing the amount that employers must contribute to adult apprenticeships and reducing the amount of time they have to use their levy funds. We read in the FT recently, though, that the Government’s own reviewer is minded to recommend the abolition of the apprenticeship levy. Are the Government minded to go down such a path? If so, how do they plan to backfill the £4 billion or so that the apprenticeship levy, now the growth and skills levy, brings into our training and skills system?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord knows as well as any of us that you cannot necessarily believe everything that you read in the newspapers. As I suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, there may well be further changes to the growth and skills levy, but we have been clear that we want to pivot it to young people to put right the 40% fall in them starting apprenticeships that we saw in the last 10 years. We also understand the role of apprenticeships, and of skills training more widely, in supporting people who are currently in work. I ask the noble Lord to wait, for example, until the final publication of Alan Milburn’s recommendations and the Government’s response to them.

Creative and Performing Arts Teaching Grants

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the decision to cut funding to creative and performing arts teaching grants in universities.

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

My Lords, decisions on the strategic priorities grant for academic year 2026-27 reflect the challenging fiscal position and not the value we place on creative and performing arts courses. We recognise the important contribution that the disciplines make to our cultural life and economy. We have had to prioritise funding towards the highest-cost subjects and areas facing the most acute skills shortages, while protecting £57.1 million of funding for world-leading specialist providers, including 12 arts institutions.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, far from being “challenging”, as the previous Secretary of State put it, this is a disastrous decision that will further imperil higher education arts courses already under threat from closure. It is at odds with the industrial strategy’s commitment to the creative industries and the concerns of Skills England, including those skills combining creativity and new technology. Does the Minister agree that increases in tuition fees are not relevant, since that will affect all courses equally? Will the Government reconsider this decision and instead formulate a strategy which will improve access to creative subjects in higher education?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I understand the disappointment in this decision, but to be clear about the scale, we are talking about the removal of £130 per student for those taking some creative and arts subjects. That is roughly 1% of the contribution towards those subjects. A £6 billion increase in the income to higher education that comes from the decisions this Government have made about tuition fees is not insignificant; it is by far the biggest part of the funding for all higher education courses, including those in creative and performing arts.

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

My Lords, before I ask my question, I must apologise to the House for my inadvertent failure to declare my interest as chair of the independent inquiry into the Police Federation of England and Wales when I spoke last week in the Second Reading of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. This interest is recorded in the register.

Does the Minister agree with me that access to higher education and careers in the creative and performing arts should be open to all, regardless of wealth or social background?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Absolutely I do, which is why, in the strategic priorities grant, we have focused on at least maintaining the funding that goes towards access and participation, including for students going into creative and performing arts subjects. This is why, as a Government, as part of the support of the creative areas, we have additionally invested in, for example, a wider spread of awareness of careers in the sector. In fact, there is a £9 million UK-wide creative careers service.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, given that the creative industries are one of the country’s most productive money earners, is it not perverse to cut grants to young people hoping to bring their skills and talents to the world of work? I was recently up at the Edinburgh Fringe, where brilliant young musicians, actors and dancers often to have to fund themselves, so tight are the purse strings for funds, yet they give such pleasure. How do the Government to propose to encourage more young people into these creative industries with these cuts?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

To be clear, this is not a cut of a grant to students; this is a cut of £130 per student to the institutions that run these courses. This is partly in order to safeguard, for example, the £20 million funding that goes to Uni Connect to open up opportunities to get into higher education for more young people. It goes alongside the expansion of other ways to develop skills in this area, such as higher technical qualifications, creative skills bootcamps and the lifelong learning entitlement, all of which provide support and opportunities for young people and people throughout their lives to get into the creative sector.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, universities need more teachers generally, but so do schools. The Government pledged to recruit 6,500 new teachers, but the annual school workforce census shows that there are 1,900 fewer teachers across all schools. Does the Minister agree with Daniel Kebede, the general secretary of the National Education Union, who called it a “mockery” of the pledge?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

No, because we have been clear in our pledge to recruit 6,500 more teachers that we would focus them on the areas in secondary and special schools where we are not seeing a fall in the number of pupils and where we know that there is a particular need, and there we have done so. The latest number is over 2,500 more teachers. We are delivering on our commitment to teachers and pupils.

[Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, £76 million of capital funding from this grant has been let out to competitive bidding. The OfS prospectus, subject to separate guidelines and the guidance letter, identifies bids that relate to the creative industries nationally and locally as meeting the criteria for growth and priority skills needs. I am confused, as I am sure the universities and the industries are. Please can my noble friend the Minister clarify the situation? Does she agree that, with a new Secretary of State in DfE, it is an excellent time to reflect on the evidence base, ready for next year’s guidance?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am sorry that I am not completely clear about the point that my noble friend is making with respect to SPG capital, which I think is what she was referring to. I will write to her about that.

[Lord Mendoza (Con)]

My Lords, it is not all gloom and doom—I declare an interest at the University of Oxford—as there are other ways to encourage capital and money to come into creative education in our universities. I draw the Minister’s attention to the recent donation by Stephen Schwarzman to the University of Oxford, which provided £200 million for a new centre for the humanities and, within that, all sorts of performing arts spaces using the latest technology. If we can encourage business and commerce to invest here and make more money here, I know of lots of other organisations, like Bank of America and Steve Schwarzman, that would put more money into the creative industries and higher education in this country. Does the Minister support philanthropy coming into this area to help?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, of course. I do. Philanthropy has always been an important way in which facilities in our universities have been supported. To help that happen, as other noble Lords have commented, we have already made the creative industries part of our industrial strategy. As a Government, we are supporting an extra £100 million of investment for the next wave of creative R&D clusters. We are supporting the arts through additional money to Arts England, and we are making sure that there is a pipeline of young people coming into the sector as well. Given the enthusiasm that there always is in this House for the creative industries and the arts, which I know is reflected out in the country, I hope that where people have the money to contribute to higher education and other areas of education, they will consider doing so.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, the reason that I was able to retrain as a design and technology teacher is that I have a graphic design degree. There is evidence that universities are already reducing their creative courses. How are we going to get the new generation of people with the subject knowledge to teach these badly needed courses that are part of the new national curriculum if nobody has the subject knowledge?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As I have said previously, I am very glad that the noble Lord has a degree and was able to train as a teacher. I am not quite sure when that happened, but I suspect that the availability of a bursary was probably as important as his first degree. It is by investing in our teachers through pay awards and bursaries for shortage subjects, and because of the success that we are having in retaining more of them in the classroom, that we are seeing more teachers in all areas of the curriculum, including the creative areas.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, is my noble friend looking forward, as I am, to the freeing up of the curriculum, so that there can be much more drama and other creative subjects in the secondary phase? This will ensure that we have enough students to continue the very good place in which the creative industries are at the moment.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes. That was absolutely a theme in the commissioning of the Curriculum and Assessment Review. We are already making changes to the curriculum, as my noble friend says, to ensure that the breadth, enrichment and value of creative subjects are reflected both across the curriculum and in the wider enrichment opportunities that we want all schools to offer to their pupils.

Skills, Vocational Training, and Further and Higher Education

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, as others have rightly done, I thank my noble friend Lady Morgan for securing this important debate, which has ranged widely. I will do my very best to respond to the range of points that have been raised and to receive written representations from anybody who wants to send them—as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Young, promised to do when I took a little comfort break earlier.

As others have said, the breadth of expertise that has been shared today shows that improving opportunity is not the responsibility of government alone; it is a national endeavour. This debate goes to the heart of how we build a fairer and more prosperous country. It is about whether every young person, whatever their background or postcode, can gain the skills, confidence and opportunities they need to succeed, and whether every region has the skilled workforce it needs to grow, attract investment and create good jobs.

The issues before us are clear. Too many young people remain outside education, employment or training. Too many adults lack access to flexible routes to upskill or retrain. Too many employers report skills shortages, while too many communities still feel cut off from the opportunities that growth should bring. That is why skills and technical and further education matter so profoundly. They are not peripheral to our economic strategy or our mission to break down barriers to opportunity; they are central to both.

The debate is therefore about how government, local leaders, employers, colleges, universities and communities work together to make technical and vocational routes more respected, more responsive and more accessible. If we are serious about widening opportunity and driving growth in every part of our country, we must also be serious about where power sits and who is trusted to use it. As the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, emphasised, there is an important argument for ensuring that power rests with those closest to making the decisions. That is why I want to begin with devolution, which is a practical answer to a practical challenge when we are thinking about how we build a skills system that reflects the needs, strengths and ambitions of the places it serves.

As several noble Lords have noted, opportunity is not distributed evenly across our country and employer demand is not identical from one region to another—a point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry—and the barriers facing a young person in one community may look very different from those facing a young person elsewhere. Local leaders know their labour markets, employers, colleges, communities and young people, and this Government believe that they should have the powers, funding and accountability to act on that knowledge within a national framework that protects quality, entitlement and access. Our approach is clear: shift power away from Westminster, strengthen strategic authorities and build a skills system that is more responsive to local economic need while staying aligned with the national priorities that matter to us all.

Noble Lords have also been clear about the scale of that challenge, with almost 1 million young people not in education, employment or training. These figures are not abstract. They represent young lives and talent we cannot afford to waste. That is why we commissioned Alan Milburn to produce what is an excellent interim report. We look forward to receiving his final report with recommendations. We are already working to ensure that we will be able to respond effectively to the recommendations and believe we will be building on progress and action already taken.

I reassure my noble friend Lady Morgan and my noble friend Lady Morris, who should be congratulated on the leadership she showed in the white working-class inquiry, that we will want to respond to those issues together. We must ensure that where a young person grows up does not determine what they can become. It is about how we ensure that talented people, wherever they live and whatever their background, can gain the knowledge, confidence and qualifications needed to succeed.

Another theme raised by many noble Lords has been the importance of prevention and early intervention. We know that young people who become detached from education or employment often face multiple and overlapping barriers. These can include disadvantage, low attainment, special educational needs, poor mental health, family circumstances and limited local opportunities. They can affect different groups differently, as my noble friend Lady Whitaker, with her usual tenacity, identified with respect to Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children.

We know that the consequences can be long lasting and that is why this Government are placing increasing emphasis on prevention, earlier identification, stronger transitions and more co-ordinated support. We are improving how schools, colleges, local authorities and partners identify young people at risk of disengagement. We are strengthening post-16 pathways, introducing new technical pathways from age 14, and investing in better data and support systems so that fewer young people fall through the cracks. The noble Baroness, Lady Cash, is right that this starts early and that is why we are improving the quantity and quality of early years provision, tackling child poverty and improving, through our support for families and better start in life information, support and information for parents as well.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, argued that there should be machinery of government changes to put skills, training and education at the heart of government. I now straddle the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions following the most recent machinery of government change, which puts skills alongside employment support in the Department for Work and Pensions. I think that was an important change.

It has led us to the development of the youth guarantee, which reflects the principles we have been talking about that every young person should have a pathway forward, whether through further learning, training, work experience and apprenticeship, or employment support. We are investing an additional £2.5 billion over the next three years into that and the growth and skills levy to support almost 1 million young people and to create up to 500,000 opportunities to earn and learn. In response to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, I can say that there are 300,000 work experience places through the youth guarantee, specifically.

I turn to further education. Many noble Lords have rightly emphasised the critical role that further education colleges play. They are anchors within their communities. They support young people, adults, career changers and employers, drive social mobility and connect education directly to the needs of local economies. My noble friend Lady Morgan described the excellent work happening in Wigan. Every time I visit excellent FE colleges, I see staff and leaders engaged with the local economy, building its input into the curriculum and building links back to their students; this is at the heart of their success. But too often they have been left behind. My noble friend Lord Barber emphasised the need for high-quality teaching, which has been harder for FE to deliver, given its vacancy rates and the lack of investment it faces.

That is why this Government are investing in the FE workforce and strengthening the sector’s foundation, including by providing around £120 million in 2026 to support colleges and other FE providers to address recruitment and retention needs, rising to £365 million next year. It is why we have increased the basic funding of FE and supported, in particular, further disadvantage funding, uplifts for T-levels and an inclusive mainstream fund to help those settings meet more special educational and disability needs.

Many noble Lords have rightly emphasised the need to raise the status of technical and vocational education. For too long, public debate has treated academic and technical routes as though one were superior to the other. We want technical excellence to command the same respect as academic achievement, and technical education to be seen not as a second choice but as an excellent choice. I also support the argument made by my noble friends, my noble friend Lady Morgan in particular, that high-quality technical and vocational education is not only about engaging students and is not only for those who would otherwise be disengaged; it should be for everybody who wants to achieve excellence, but via a technical and vocational route. It is important that we keep that at the heart of our ambition and the changes we are making.

That is why the Prime Minister has announced new prestigious technical education routes, giving 14 year-olds earlier access to technical skills, work experience and local employers. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, has noted the emphasis from 14 that the new Prime Minister has brought in. I note the noble Lord’s strong emphasis, once again, on the opportunities that UTC sleeves may well provide in delivering this. But rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all model for delivering this new approach designed by Whitehall, regional mayors, local leaders, schools, colleges and employers will shape pathways around local industries and growth sectors, from advanced manufacturing, AI and digital technology to clean energy, life sciences, construction, health and care, and the creative industries. These changes build on our existing reforms, which demonstrate both the urgency and the ambition.

With respect to the point about English and maths, I strongly agree that the literacy and numeracy skills that you need throughout life, often represented by a grade 4 at GCSE, are fundamentally important. That is why we are determined, with all the reforms that we are making pre 16, to strengthen the ability of children to get those qualifications and, post 16, to make sure that the system is focused not on a churn of resits but on the quality of teaching, professional development and the evidence of what works to enable young people to succeed if they have not up to that point. It is why we will also introduce a new level 1 stepping-stone qualification to enable young people to build the foundations they need in English and maths if they have not been successful in doing that previously.

Equally, it is important that we emphasise the specialism and the contribution of FE colleges, which is why we have developed 29 new technical excellence colleges, including the 19 announced this year that are backed by £175 million, giving around 65,000 learners access to training for high-demand jobs in advanced manufacturing, clean energy, defence, digital and technologies. That builds on the first wave of construction technical excellence colleges, supported by £120 million of investment, which will train 40,000 construction learners by 2029. Together, that is a practical example of skills policy being tied directly to the industries and places where growth will come from, and it is an investment in the capacity and ability of further education colleges to work alongside those industries to provide opportunities for young people and the skills the country needs.

As I have already said, I strongly support the points made by my noble friends Lady Morris and Lady Morgan about the rigour and quality that we must maintain in technical and vocational education. It should not be seen as a second-rate or alternative route for those who do not want or are not able to take an academic route. It must of itself be a prestigious, high-quality and rigorous route, and access to that quality must be open as widely as possible. I take the points made about level 6 apprenticeships, for example, which are offering brilliant opportunities for students but are not currently widely accessible enough to those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

It is also the case that young people need a broader range of enrichment and experience, as several noble Lords have identified. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester talked about the need for work experience, as I have said, and the role of volunteering in contributing to the sorts of experiences that are important for young people. The noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, rightly identified the benefits that cadets can bring. Others identified important ways in which we need to support young people to progress. I note as well the point, made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry, about young people who might arrive at 16 without having had the opportunity to achieve up to that point. That is one of the reasons we are changing the qualifications and the routes for young people—what we would call level 2 post-16—to provide new pathways through an occupational route into jobs and a further study route into the ability to study level 3 qualifications. We cannot let young people lose the opportunities that jobs or further study could offer them.

As she often does, my noble friend Lady Caine made a powerful case for creativity across the curriculum and throughout the age ranges. She challenged, as she often does. In a Question on Monday, we will have an opportunity to talk about support for higher education in creativity. We rightly heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, about the need to ensure routes into dance. This Government have continued to support the music and dance scheme, and I hear the calls for certainty around that. My noble friend Lady Hazarika spoke on the enthusiasm, the opportunities, the enrichment and joy that the study of music can bring, and the need to continue the work that we are doing on financial literacy was emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sater.

Several noble Lords highlighted apprenticeships and their powerful role in supporting young people into work and on the path to successful careers. That is why we are investing in them and reversing the sharp decline in apprenticeship starts among young people which we have seen over the last decade. There is an additional £1 billion investment to support 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships over the next three years. My noble friend Lady Alexander noted the ambitious plans that the Government have and rightly identified our need to make it as simple, easy and straightforward as possible for employers to take on apprentices. We have made progress in that area already, and we will keep pushing to make sure that that is the case. To support employers, we will also develop brokerage opportunities locally—as was suggested by my noble friend Lady Morgan; we are piloting them already—to bring together employers and apprentices.

An important point was made about the role of higher education. I see—not just because of my job—the system as a tertiary system where opportunities need to work through further education and higher education. Of course, it is the case that very many of the skills that our economy needs will be provided through higher education, not just through an earlier route. That is why we need higher education to provide more opportunities for apprenticeships and to work effectively with further education to develop the level 4 and 5 qualifications that we need in this country. The Government have set out our target to increase the number of young people achieving level 4 and above qualifications.

My noble friend Lord Docherty raised adult education, and several noble Lords talked about the need for education to be lifelong. I strongly support that. My noble friend is right that the funding for adult skills has fallen since 2010. Within the constraints that we face, we will try at the very least to maintain the support that is there, because it is so important for reskilling people, getting people back close to the labour market, helping people who have no English and maths to take up their entitlements to that, and supporting speakers of other languages with English—which is one of the things that the adult skills fund supports. The adult skills fund is devolved to make sure that it will be as effective as possible. My noble friend Lord Nagaraju, quite rightly, talked about the need for reskilling and the emphasis on AI, and made the point that that needs to be open to encourage the widest possible participation.

In closing, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. The points raised today will inform our work to build a skills system that is ambitious, inclusive and responsive; one that empowers local leaders, supports disadvantaged communities, strengthens regional growth and ensures that talent, determination and hard work are rewarded wherever they are found. I commend the Government’s approach to the House.

Office for Students: Academic Misconduct Allegations

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

In begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare an interest as the director of the Free Speech Union.

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

My Lords, our world-class higher education system is built on the principle of institutional autonomy. As autonomous institutions, universities are responsible for setting and maintaining the academic standards of the qualifications that they award. The Office for Students regulates these standards through its regulatory framework. When providers fall below minimum requirements, it already has the power to investigate and take regulatory action.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

I am grateful for that reply. Does the Minister accept that the Jason Arday case, where serious allegations of academic misconduct were initially dismissed by Cambridge as a “vile smear”, with an investigation launched only after months of damaging public scrutiny, illustrates why the Office for Students needs this power? Will the Government commit to consulting about it?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I have already identified that the Office for Students has that power already. The death of Jason Arday is of course a tragedy. I am sure that, for many people, our heartfelt condolences are with his family and friends and everybody who cared about him. Cambridge is rightly establishing an independent investigation. I had the opportunity yesterday, along with the Secretary of State, to talk to the vice-chancellor and senior leaders of Cambridge University about that, and they will be imminently announcing the detail of the terms of reference for that investigation. Importantly, they gave assurances to me and the Secretary of State that it would be independent and rigorous.

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords, one area of academic misconduct that does not get addressed is the exploitation of junior academics, particularly women and minority-ethnic academics, by older academics who sometimes force their names on to papers to which they have not contributed, use the work of junior academics to secure millions of pounds of research funding and then discard them from projects. Sometimes there are tribunals, settlements and NDAs, but there is no accountability and the cycle continues. What are the Government doing, and what can the Office for Students do, to address this?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

That would clearly be an unsatisfactory position for any junior academic involved in that situation. It is slightly less a job for government and slightly more for the leadership of universities, which, as I have said, are autonomous institutions that are rightly responsible for maintaining their academic standards. I am sure that they and others will have heard the concerns that the noble Baroness has expressed today.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I also pay tribute to Jason Arday. In the Minister’s response to the noble Lord, Lord Young, she talked about the Office for Students having the powers already, but is she willing to carry out a review to ensure that it has sufficient powers and, if possible, look at the possibilities of beefing up its powers if she found that it needed more?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We always keep the powers of the Office for Students under review. I am sure that it, like others, will want to look carefully at any recommendations that come out of the independent inquiry that Cambridge University has instituted. Universities UK may also want to think about the way in which any lessons learned from this episode can be reflected across the whole sector, and we will obviously want to work with it on that as well.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a serious and difficult case that clearly raises legitimate questions, but surely we should await the outcome of the various inquiries under way before passing judgment. Universities, as the Minister said, are already subject to a range of checks and balances, and indeed Cambridge has already started its review process. I suggest that the most responsible course of action at this stage is to let the investigations establish the facts, look carefully at what they tell us about the robustness of the existing checks and then consider whether any regulatory or other intervention is necessary.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I agree with my noble friend. Much has been said about this issue, not all of it, I suspect, either helpful or correct. It is important that we allow a relatively speedy—I hope—and independent investigation into the issues raised by this very sad case, which may well relate to the processes for the recruitment of academics, the levels of academic and research standards and the processes in place, both within individual institutions and across the sector, for ensuring that in our higher education system those are maintained at the very highest levels. I am sure it will be helpful to wait for the results of these inquiries and any recommendations that are made in order for all of us to be able to review what further action might be necessary.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, on Tuesday we heard some moving and powerful speeches about breaking through the defensive institutional cover-ups of wrongdoing when we discussed the Hillsborough law. Even honest mistakes can be made toxic by a lack of accountability. Can the Minister assure us that universities are also held to these high standards of candour, that their autonomy cannot be used as an excuse for marking one’s own homework, as in the instance of what Cambridge proposes, and that she takes seriously the fact that academics, whistleblowers and journalists were threatened and smeared for simply doing their job? Does she accept that academic freedom and academic standards are threatened if nothing is done, and can she assure us that she will keep her eye on this? What has happened here is very serious.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As I think I have already made clear, both I and the Secretary of State have been doing more than just keeping our eye on this. It was important for us yesterday, in our meeting with the vice-chancellor, to have the assurance that she was able to give us that the detail of the reviews would be imminently announced, that the reviews would be carried out independently and that recommendations that came from them would be made available for all of us to consider whether any further action is necessary.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, the department at the centre of this summer’s tragic events is not any university faculty. It trains teachers with public money under DfE accreditation. Parents and schools are entitled to know that those who train our teachers meet the standards that we demand of the teachers themselves. Will the Minister confirm which regulator—the Office for Students, Ofsted or her own department—is responsible and accountable for the integrity of academic qualifications in accredited teacher training providers? Will she accept that nobody in England currently has the power to investigate across institutions? If she agrees with that, will she say which body should do it?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

First, to reiterate what I said, it is right that institutions themselves are responsible for maintaining academic standards. It is a fundamental part of the reason for the success of our higher education system that they continue to maintain high academic standards. The noble Baroness raises an important point about regulation with respect to teacher training, where I think there is a role for Ofsted, but I will come back to her with more detail.

With regard to the university itself, as I have made clear, the Office for Students already has the ability to regulate with respect to academic standards and processes that might be undermining them. She makes an important point, which I touched on earlier, about the extent to which the system itself, rather than simply individual institutions, maintains the quality of academic standards. That is something that we and Universities UK will want to look at in more detail.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister—inadvertently, I am sure—creates an impression of if not complacency then certainly inertia. I emphasise that I am sure it is inadvertent. What many of us find surprising is the question of what would be necessary to allow the Office for Students to launch an investigation, rather than a general periphery discussion going on among institutions. Surely that office should have the power to take dynamic action.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It is unlike the noble Baroness to make the charge that she has just made to me, and, frankly, I think it is unfair. I have been pretty clear that, in talking to Cambridge University, we have been assured and are clear that there will be an independent investigation into the particular circumstances here. I have also been clear, in response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, that when we know what the conclusions of that review are, there may well be further action that we want to take. If the noble Baroness wants me to take knee-jerk action on the basis of news headlines, I am afraid that is not something I am willing to do.

Schools: Mobile Phone Policy

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the ‘not seen, not heard’ mobile phone policy in schools.

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

My Lords, our mobile phones in schools guidance is statutory from yesterday, 1 September, and is clear that schools should be mobile phone-free environments by default. We trust school leaders to choose the approach that works best for their setting. This includes the use of “not seen, not heard” policies if they are backed by strong enforcement to ensure that pupils do not have access to their phones during any part of the school day. We have committed to reviewing the guidance and making necessary revisions by September 2027.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that reply, and I am pleased that she reiterated the Government’s commitment to review the guidance. Can she say what data and evidence the Government will use to inform their decision and when they expect to take that decision? I know that normally the school behaviour survey is published in November each year, and obviously it would be helpful to schools and trusts to hear as quickly as possible after that if they need to change their policies going forward.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Baroness will be pleased that we are already seeing evidence—for example, from research done as part of Teacher Tapp—that schools are continuing to strengthen their approaches, with 41% of secondary schools planning changes to their mobile phone policies for this new academic year. On the review, I think we will want to start from January 2027 with the data that we are able to collect, the results of the behaviour survey, as the noble Baroness says, and engagement with stakeholders, so that we will be in a position to put any revisions into the guidance so that it can be implemented from September 2027.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

I listened closely to my noble friend the Minister’s response. It is fantastic to hear all the work that the Government are doing to reflect on this. Parents at this time are reporting that schools retaining the “not seen, not heard” policies are having lots of challenges. They are hearing from their children how the children are still accessing those phones at break or lunchtimes because, understandably, teachers are not able to police all areas of the school. Is it possible that parents will also be spoken to in order to gather the evidence?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, of course parents need to be involved in this. They need to be involved in the development of schools’ behaviour policies in which, or alongside which, the mobile phone policy should sit. They need to understand the benefits for children of not using phones during the course of the school day. As I say, notwithstanding the fact that the majority of secondary schools use a policy that could come under the broad category of “not seen, not heard”, there are lots of examples of schools, even within that category, that have strong and effective mobile phone policies that are making a real difference to the calmness of the classroom and the learning of their pupils.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, the effectiveness of a policy is always about how it actually happens on the ground. What assessment has been made about the variations in how schools are implementing “not seen, not heard” policies? In particular, what support is given to those schools that are facing a challenge from either pupils or parents? We heard during the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill in the last Session that a small group of parents are very vocal about this issue and often take up a lot of teacher time.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that the difference is made on the ground. That is why school leaders, and their capacity to be able to decide what is right for their school, are absolutely at the heart of this. Where school leaders are finding it difficult to do that in a way that supports their school’s functioning effectively for children, there will be support from the department’s attendance and behaviour hubs, and of course Ofsted will now be inspecting schools on the basis of the extent to which their mobile phone policies are not only in place but being properly implemented. That will potentially have an impact on their standard for attendance and behaviour.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I am slightly confused here. I have taught in three schools but never in one that allows mobile phones. The Department for Education expects schools to implement a policy whereby pupils do not have access to their mobile phones throughout the school day. It says “not seen, not heard”, but if the phones are in their bags they have access to them. Surely “not seen, not heard” does not actually apply to this guidance.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Well, it does. If the noble Lord wants to have a look at some of the case studies that we have also provided for schools to support their implementation of the policy that schools should be mobile phone free by default, he will see that lots of schools are successfully using this approach and getting the calmness in the classroom, the focus of pupils and the support of teachers that we all want to see.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister knows, schools with effective phone bans, which means handed in and locked away, are twice as likely to be rated outstanding, with GCSE results one to two grades higher. The poorest pupils gain the most. However, the reality is that this costs money, and providing a Yondr pouch costs about £20 per pupil—some £75 million nationally, in a schools budget of £65 billion. The Government have not provided a penny to schools to do this, and they have to find the money from stretched budgets. Will the Minister commit to funding the actual equipment needed to make our schools phone free?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

This Government have committed to funding a whole range of things, which is why there are considerable increases in school budgets. Nevertheless, it remains for head teachers to choose how to spend that additional investment, given the very clear and now statutory guidance that this Government have provided.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, as was well rehearsed during the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, protecting our children online is not just about what happens in school. Last week Meta settled claims with 47 states in the US in which it committed to making a whole series of product and service changes for under-18s, but only in the US. What are the Government doing to ensure that our own children receive the same protections?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Noble Lords know that on 15 June the Government announced that they will ban social media companies from providing their services to under-16s and prevent under-16s engaging in livestreaming and stranger communication on a wider range of services, alongside stronger default protections for 16 and 17 year-olds. The Government intend to lay regulations before Parliament on that social media ban by the end of 2026. We expect the restrictions to enter into force in spring 2027, and they will be among the strongest controls, if not the strongest, across the world.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that if particular tech companies cannot agree to the safety of children, they should not be allowed to have a licence to operate?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The provisions we are making with respect to social media for young people build on provisions in the Online Safety Act. It is important, and the Government have been clear, that Ofcom needs to continue to put in place the strongest possible protections for children and take the strongest possible action against companies that do not fulfil that.