Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, we have not got any amendments in this group, but I will make a few observations. First, it is really important we get this right and we have the opportunity to do so between Committee and Report.

I have personal experience of multi-agency working in terms of child protection—not a great deal, but a few cases. The thing that nobody has mentioned is that, when a member of staff has left the job or moved to another authority, the whole process grinds to a halt; the new person who is busy looking at the case files is not able to benefit from the knowledge that has been gained. It is often very disruptive.

Often in Committee, somebody will get up and make a point that you have never really thought about. When the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, had finished, I thought, “Absolutely right”. But I had not thought about the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and he is absolutely right: in terms of police involvement, there can be a real conflict. It just proved to me, yet again, the importance of sharing these ideas so that we get a result which is actually workable.

It is interesting that the Children’s Commissioner suggests a

“threshold for assessment and support”

to bring greater consistency. This also picks up on the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raised about resources—that it is important that we get the resources absolutely right.

I was interested in the point about sharing practice with those practitioners—that they do not come with their own particular viewpoint but have that training and expertise to share and listen. Cross-border working can be very difficult indeed and can sometimes cause real issues as well, but, if we listen to each other, we can get this right.

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

My Lords, as we start on these amendments relating to the operational delivery of multi-agency child protection teams, I will just respond to a few general points before I go into the details of the points that have been made and the amendments.

First, on the point the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, made both today and on Tuesday, it is not true that there is no support for these arrangements among local authority children’s services and organisations concerned about child protection and keeping children safe. There is plenty of support. Nor has this idea somehow or other fallen out of the sky. In fact, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, gave us a good explanation of the history of this. Of course, last autumn this Government published Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive, which included the provisions that are in this legislation. So there has been plenty of time, and in fact the department has taken the opportunity to talk to a broad range of professionals and others about how we will ensure that all the provisions in the Bill work properly.

The provisions in Clause 3 particularly relate to the duty to protect children with respect to the legislative arrangements on child protection. The experience of child protection is that too often, this most difficult and crucial area of children’s social work has been carried out by social workers who are perhaps less experienced and not necessarily experts in child protection. They have had to do it without the full story of the children they are trying to protect, because of the lack of the strongest possible input from a range of different agencies to create that full story about the child and their needs, in order to ensure that they are protected properly.

On one of the concerns expressed by Professor Munro, as I emphasised on Tuesday, these provisions do not downgrade the quality or nature of social workers who will be working on child protection. They will increase the likelihood that the most experienced social workers will be working in the most difficult area. We are clear that a fully qualified social worker will be responsible within the multi-agency child protection team. Equally, in family help, where the worker is dealing with a child about which there are child protection concerns, that will also be a fully qualified social worker.

On the detail of this and how we got here in the first place, as many noble Lords have said, both today and in other debates on the Bill, nothing is more important than keeping children safe. Ineffective multi-agency working is a key factor where child protection activity fails, and, despite existing legislation, day-to-day operations can be inconsistent and ineffective. In its review, the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel found that inexperienced practitioners, ineffective multi-agency working and poor information-sharing within and between agencies results in missed opportunities to protect children. As I said, this is a situation I am sure all of us are keen to improve.

Often, several practitioners have information about a child and their family but the lack of joint working means that vital opportunities are missed to protect children from serious harm—for example, the GP treating a parent for their substance misuse, the school that notices a child arriving unwashed and unfed, and the police involved in call-outs for domestic abuse. But no one has the whole picture of the day-to-day life of the child. Early results from the 10 local area pathfinders for Families First—a programme that, as we discussed on Tuesday, is embedding family help, multi-agency child protection and family group decision-making in a single integrated system—demonstrate better management of complex issues, reducing crisis points and enabling quicker, effective interventions where children need protection.

I hear again the calls for publishing the first part of the pathfinders evaluation, which I wholly understand. I hope, even if it is slightly later than spring, that it will be available—I know it will be available for the development of these teams. But we are not even waiting for that. We are using already the experiences of those who are going through the pathfinders to help support practice in other local authority areas, through webinars and through the opportunity to share not just good practice but the challenges they are finding. The fact that some pathfinders are finding some things difficult is precisely the point of having a pathfinder: so that you can work out what works, where you might need to change things, how you are going to operationalise it and what additional support might be needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister on one point that she raised. I can hear that she feels that the accountability point is probably going to be okay, but, to combine a couple of things that she mentioned, the team can call on the right skills at the right time. That is obviously a major argument for this team. The only skills that the police really bring, because they are not child protection experts or experts in children’s development, is the ability to investigate crime; they bring nothing else to the table, really, apart from the fact that they are generally, I hope, innately nice people and reasonable people. I am not saying that they have no skills—that is really not my point—but the professional skills they bring to the table and the professional powers which are invested in them by law are all about how they investigate. If the team turns to them and says, “So it is your turn now to go and see this father”, or this mother, actually, that is not for them to call; that is for the police to call. That is the fundamental thing.

While I am on my feet, and to save a later interruption, although the Minister may be coming to it, on the point that has been identified about the gap in knowledge where each of the agencies holds data that the others may not have access to, that is why the MASHs were created. That is why we have people sat in groups around the country, as has been mentioned already. That is what they are supposed to be doing. It may be that this report has concluded they are not doing it as well as they could, but I am not sure this team is going to fill the gap. That is what the MASHs were really intended to do.

My final point is on the evaluation, which I know the Minister said is going to be published. The only piece of data I will be really interested in is how many fewer children got hurt or died, or whose development was not interrupted, or to what extent the satisfaction of the families involved was enhanced, as a result of this team’s intervention. They are the two core issues: basically, did kids get protected more by getting hurt less, and can we prove it? The rest, I am afraid, is a bit soft, in my view.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord on his final point. That is exactly the objective in what we are trying to do here. Whether or not the evaluation, after a relatively short period of time, will give us conclusive proof about that, I would be unsure, but that is absolutely the objective.

Working backwards through the noble Lord’s points, I think he is right that the police play a very important role in multi-agency safeguarding hubs. But that, of course, is what happens at the point at which people or other agencies are thinking about referring into the system. Quite often, it helps to provide earlier support or more clarity about whether or not children should be being referred into the system. It is not specifically about child protection, which, as I was saying at the beginning, is probably the most difficult and the most crucial point in thinking about the point at which the child is in the system.

I am surprised at the noble Lord, because I think he undersells what police officers do. He knows that the officers that he was responsible for would have known, when they were being called out to domestic abuse cases, what intelligence they had about the likelihood of children being exploited through gangs or in other ways. They would have known who in the local community were, frankly, getting into trouble and whose children were therefore likely to be in danger. They would have known the events that had happened that had brought disharmony or difficulties into communities. They would have known who was taking drugs and who was dealing them. All of that information, you could imagine, could you not, at the right point in the consideration of a child’s case, would be really, really important for getting that full story about the child. That is why I think it is right that police are involved in this.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raised the point about funding, which is a fair point. That is why, as I have previously talked about and will talk about again, there is more investment for this initiative that the Government have put in place, but I would also, as I think I have been saying, be clear to policing that this is part of their responsibility. In very many police forces, they are recognising that the multi-agency child protection team enables that to be as effective as possible in the way in which it is put together.

Turning to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, and spoken to today by the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, which seek to include social workers with expertise in working with children with disabilities in the multi-agency teams, I absolutely agree that the teams should be equipped to identify, understand and respond effectively to all children and their families. I reassure the noble Baroness that there is, as I was describing earlier, already sufficient flexibility for safeguarding partners to determine which social work and health practitioners are most suited to work in these teams. I could imagine that there would be times when it would be appropriate to have a social worker or a health worker with expertise in disability involved.

The point is that it is important to determine in the legislation, as this Bill does, who the key, compulsory members of the team are, then to have in regulations the other agencies that could be called on to support the multi-agency child protection team. It is just not appropriate to list in the legislation every single agency or worker who might potentially be involved, but that does not mean that they are not important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, for several reasons I support Amendment 37 from my noble friend Lady Barran. She and others have spoken about the enormous amount of change being imposed on the sector, both to current structures and prospectively with local government reorganisation and with many processes through these reforms.

We have now heard from enough people here and outside to think that there is good reason to be concerned about poor decision-making arising from the blurring of early help, targeted support, work with children in need and child protection. There are potentially parallels with the SEND reforms a few years ago, when a new model was expected to simplify and reduce costs, and reduce numbers in the system, but has, sadly, done the opposite. On the points that have been made about the blurring of accountability, there is again reason to be concerned.

I was part of a national implementation board after the care review and, in that process, I was struck, more than in most government processes I have been involved with, that many people seemed to find it hard to say what they really thought to Ministers. They perhaps pulled punches a little bit. It is incredibly important to make sure that there is a report that all can see and that is really transparent about how these reforms are working in practice.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We have come on to more understandable consideration of how the teams will work in practice, particularly with respect to local authority responsibility. Multi-agency child protection teams will be effective only if they are truly multi-agency. There is an understandable concern here about the significance of the role of local authorities, but it is probably also worth remembering, as we discussed on Tuesday, that safeguarding partners—local authorities, health and police—have joint and equal responsibilities for safeguarding in legislation. Through the multi-agency child protection teams, we are trying to ensure that day to day, in operational terms, with respect to individual children and cases, there is a practical way for those responsibilities, and the information that those agencies may have, to be brought together in that full picture about the child.

I spoke earlier about the findings from the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel on child protection. To tackle the issues it identified, we need, as I have suggested, multi-agency experts in a room together, sharing information and bringing their different perspectives to decisions that protect children. It is important that we ensure the right people are deployed to those teams so that expert, swift and decisive action is taken to protect children, and we recognise the importance of safeguarding partners reporting on the impact of their arrangements to make sure that is happening. We need to base that, as has been the argument on other parts of the Bill, on the best possible evidence, which is both the professional work that constituted the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel and, as others have mentioned, the independent review by my honourable friend Josh MacAlister.

Of course, we also need the evaluation that noble Lords have talked about. It will come in more than one stage. There will be evaluation of the process and some of the practicalities of setting up the process that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, referenced, and, later, of the impact of the teams.

Amendment 30 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks local discretion in multi-agency team membership and organisation. Requiring safeguarding partners to nominate a minimum team reflects partners’ collective duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area. They will also have, as I outlined in the previous group, flexibility to add other agencies or individuals, reflecting local needs and to tackle local harms. We know from Families First pathfinders that these teams are already making a real difference. In Ofsted’s recent inspection of children’s services, Dorset, one of the pathfinders, received an “outstanding” judgment. The report noted that when children are at risk of significant harm, strategy meetings are well attended by partner agencies and that effective information-sharing and analysis of risk lead to children receiving the right intervention and support. It is right that we celebrate the success of and learning from pathfinders and, as I suggested previously, learn from where things have been more challenging. On the resourcing, as I said on Tuesday, this transformation journey is being supported from our £500 million Families First Partnership Programme funding.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, made a couple of specific points. On whether this is doing away with an independent chair, one of the main purposes of multi-agency child protection teams is to have a fresh pair of eyes coming in at the point of the Section 47 inquiry. The new lead child protection practitioner role will work—in fact, is working in pathfinders—in a very similar way to the current independent chairs. I take her point about the need for a fresh view and independence, but that is built into the design of the teams.

On whether this would mean children having more than one social worker, children and families will stay rooted in family help throughout. Multi-agency child protection teams will lead the child protection functions, working with and wrapping support around children, families and the family help lead practitioner. The multi-agency child protection team brings expertise and a fresh focus on significant harm. The lead child protection practitioner will be an experienced social worker but will not be the case lead. In other words, the important ongoing relationship, which I know children feel strongly about, with a person they can understand, work with and gain a relationship with, will remain in place, but additional expertise will be brought to this from the multi-agency child protection team.

On Amendment 37, which would place in the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State to report annually on the team’s impact and activities, I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that it is essential that we understand how multi-agency teams are leading to better outcomes for children and that that learning be shared across the system. That being said, safeguarding partners already have a statutory responsibility to publish annual reports on their multi-agency safeguarding arrangements. This will include reporting on multi-agency child protection teams once the teams come into force. Statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, already sets out the information that should be included in yearly reports, and that will include evidence of impact. Guidance will be updated to include the reporting requirements for these new multi-agency teams. There will be, at the level at which it really matters, a responsibility to account for and report on the nature and success of the multi-agency safeguarding arrangements.

On that basis, and with those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I thank warmly all those who contributed to this short debate, in particular my noble friend Lady O’Neill for her practical examples of how it works on the ground and the very reasonable concerns she and colleagues have about these reforms. If I am honest, I was worried when I listened to the Minister about the amount of confirmation bias in her remarks that this will work exactly as we all wish. If that turns out to be the case, I will be the first to admit that I am wrong, but most big, complicated reforms such as this do not go exactly as planned: some things go well, and others do not. I hope the Government will keep an open mind on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Longfield (Lab)]

Yes—I apologise for that on many levels. We have to move forward at pace, but also with confidence and determination, while also checking along the way that we are giving support where it is needed.

Finally, we need to ensure that investment is there, but we have to get to the point where we are investing money to prevent rather than to just pay the costly bills when things have got to acute status.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We are now on group three on multi-agency child protection teams. As I have already said, these teams seek to address the problems we repeatedly see when children are seriously harmed or killed, including poor information sharing, weak decision-making based on single-service perspectives, and inexperienced social workers without the support, knowledge and experience needed to make tough decisions and ensure children and families get the support they need.

One of the areas in which these teams are already being delivered is Warwickshire. Perhaps at this point, before I talk about Warwickshire, I could also respond to the point made in the previous group by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about the pathfinders. Actually, two of the pathfinders are not “good” or “outstanding”; they are, in fact, “requires improvement”, so that was wrong.

Teams in Warwickshire have reported, to the department, the lowest number of children on child protection plans since July 2023. This reduction is attributed to a more efficient and targeted approach by the multi-agency team, ensuring that the right children are getting the right intervention at the right time—and, crucially, as early as possible in the system. My noble friend Lady Longfield made a very important point about the nature of the objectives of this reform, which are encompassed in this Bill and in the policy paper that I referenced earlier. The objective is to shift support for children much earlier in the process and, where necessary, for a Section 47 child protection intervention to be carried out by the most experienced and senior social workers, who should be supported by a team that brings together the whole range of agencies that may well have information about the child.

With this in mind, I turn to Amendment 33, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, which seeks to allow discretion about the qualifications of persons nominated to teams and seeks clarity on the qualifications prescribed through regulations. Setting out clear requirements for the skills, knowledge and qualifications of multi-agency child protection team members ensures a consistent national standard and consistent expectations for the practitioners making decisions that protect our most vulnerable children. These children deserve this level of consistency and qualification—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey.

As I have said, we know from national reviews that those on the front line of complex child protection do not always have the support and experience they need. We are determined to change that through the regulations that will accompany this legislation. The point about regulations is important, and I will come back to it again when responding to the clause stand part debate. As parliamentarians, we all know that, while it is important that primary legislation sets out the intent, design and most important elements of legislative change, operational detail is best suited to regulations, where there is more flexibility to accommodate developments in sector standards—for example, if new evidence emerges, this good practice can be reflected in the regulations. We are working with other government departments and will publicly consult on these regulations before bringing them before Parliament for scrutiny.

I turn to the clause stand part debate that seeks to remove Clause 3, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has given notice. Annie Hudson chaired the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel, and one of its recommendations led to the development of this legislation. There has been an important discussion about the need to enable sufficient time for appropriate implementation. However, when you have very clear recommendations—as we have here, which I will demonstrate shortly—it is incumbent on Governments to take action on the basis of that. We must ensure that the implementation is right, but we must also, as this Government have done, set out the ambition for the reform necessary in children’s social care to achieve both the strategic change that my noble friend discussed and to overcome some of the shortcomings that we have—sadly—seen evidenced in recent cases. That is what this legislation aims to do.

Annie Hudson said:

“In my time as chair of the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel I have seen reviews about several thousands of serious incidents where children have died or been seriously harmed as a result of abuse and neglect. It is the learning from those incidents, and most particularly the repeated lack of join up between agencies, that led to the Panel’s recommendation in our report Child Protection in England about the tragic deaths of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson to introduce multi-agency child protection teams. High quality social work is critical to effective child protection, but we must also draw on the expertise of practitioners from across different professions and agencies (including police, health and education) to meet the complex safeguarding needs of some children and families. The need for multi-agency child protection teams was also clearly evidenced in our recent national review about child sexual abuse in the family environment. This review found that, once concerns had been raised, too often there was a lack of thorough child protection investigation and effective action to protect and help children. This was in part due to ‘silo’ working across agencies, and inadequate multi-agency exploration and sharing of concerns that children may be at risk”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Can I just clarify a few points that the noble Baroness made in her remarks? She gave the example of Warwickshire reducing the number of children on child protection plans, but of course the number of children on child protection plans nationally fell last year by 1.7% and has fallen by 3.1% since 2020, and that is despite the increase in unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Clearly, we welcome the progress in Warwickshire and anywhere in the country that is achieving that, but I think the impression that she gave was that this was an unusual occurrence, and it is just important to acknowledge that that is a national trend.

Secondly, the regulations the Minister refers to are obviously extremely important in terms of implementation. I can remember other Governments publishing draft regulations during the passage of a Bill so that the House had clarity on their intentions. I wonder whether she would be very kind and take that back to the department and see if that is an option in this and potentially other areas of the Bill.

I am not sure whether I followed the Minister’s comments about the duplication of caseworkers, but page 13 of the department’s guidance appears to suggest that, in Section 47 cases, both the family help lead practitioner and the lead child protection practitioner will be involved. I am sorry to be picky about the money, and of course she is right on the £500 million, but, again, her department’s own documentation states that £253.5 million of that is mainstreamed funding originally for the Supporting Families programme. Again, this is just to be clear about what is new money and what it is for.

Finally, I wonder whether the Minister might pick up on my noble friend Lady Berridge’s suggestion about a meeting. She talked about the general engagement the department rightly has, but can she comment on whether she feels able to accept that invitation?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said that she did not want to undermine the good work happening in Warwickshire by pointing out a general downturn in the number of child protection plans. Good, because, as I suggested earlier, we should celebrate where there has been good work, which in Warwickshire they certainly attributed to the changes they had made.

On the point about draft regulations, there is a tension here, because on the one hand people are asking us to continue to engage on the detail of how this is going to be implemented, yet also to have the regulations alongside the Bill. I will reflect on this and come back to her. On the point about duplication, I have explained it twice, but, clearly, I have not explained it well enough. So I will undertake to write to noble Lords about the operational details, and particularly the role of the family help lead practitioner and the lead practitioner for child protection, and the operational detail that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, was talking about.

On the point about new money, I think I have been pretty clear about what is new money; I said it explicitly. On the meeting, my point was that there will be a whole range of meetings and engagement; I did not say I would not have a meeting. My honourable friend the Minister with responsibility for children’s social care has met many practitioners, experts and DCSs as this process has gone on. I suspect that, between us, we will be able to continue meeting people in the way suggested.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I am grateful for that clarification. Let me assure the Minister on what this concern is born out of, as I hope I explained. We can all pick off one or two experts in a group of people, but there are sector bodies such as the British Association of Social Workers and the Association of Directors of Children’s Services. I mentioned a particular individual because there was particular engagement in the independent review we are all relying on. I assure the Minister that if she comes back at Report with support from those organisations, saying, “We support this; we understand; we have engaged”, these problems will fall away. She has a busy diary—obviously, I do not want to suggest how she allocates her diary—but if she comes back with the support of those representative practitioner bodies, with that assurance, the concerns will melt away.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am not sure that picking off experts is the way the department has engaged in consultation or engagement so far, nor will it do in the future. I am realistic: over my time in both Houses, this is probably my 12th Bill, and frankly, I have never done a Bill about which absolutely everybody was content. I am not going to accept that the only way we can progress this legislation is if every single expert, representative and professional body supports it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I think there is a misunderstanding about my noble friend Lord Agnew’s remarks. My understanding is that he said that schools have got very good at safeguarding, but there are new responsibilities on schools in this Bill and he asked whether additional training would be required and where the resource would be, rather than saying, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, seemed to infer, that this was a new thing. My noble friend knows extremely well that it is not a new thing.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

In previous groups, I have spoken at some length about the purpose and functions of these new multi-agency child protection teams and how they will be delivered as part of the existing joint and equal duty on safeguarding partners to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children in their area.

On Amendment 34, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, for his contribution on ensuring that teachers and teaching assistants have the right training to work effectively in child protection. Statutory guidance is clear that teaching staff should receive safeguarding training at induction and at least annually thereafter. My noble friend Lady Bousted was very clear about that position. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, was also very passionate about the need for schools to be involved in this issue, which is precisely why on Tuesday we debated the clause about education and childcare settings being key safeguarding partners, and the improved emphasis on that in this legislation.

However, despite having this assurance, I decided in the spirit of the previous discussion that we were having that I would consult an expert about whether this is in fact the case. I consulted a teacher very close to me about the sort of training that he is receiving. He told me, “Every year, we receive statutory update training at the beginning of the year. This can take most of one of our inset days and requires us to read the updates for KCSIE”—Keeping Children Safe in Education—“guidance. Then we get update training through the year, every couple of weeks in briefing, and then about once a half-term in an after-school CPD”. He is an excellent teacher, although as his mother I am completely biased, and he is in a very good school. I think this makes the point about the current position in terms of training for teachers and teaching assistants.

There is a reasonable point to be made about the education partners. Although they already have a responsibility for safeguarding, they will now also have a more explicit role in the multi-agency child protection teams. I hope I can reassure noble Lords by saying that the statutory guidance is also clear that the statutory safeguarding partners, which include the other partners that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, referred to, should support practitioners that work with children, including through creating a learning culture where practitioners stay up to date on best practice. We are clear and confident that the education practitioner in the multi-agency child protection teams will be able to operate as a crucial link to and from education and childcare settings, ensuring that school staff are supported to work effectively with vulnerable children and the child protection teams.

The pathfinder areas have developed multi-agency workforce development plans and delivered comprehensive multi-agency training that has provided opportunities not just to ensure that practitioners have the knowledge and skills they need to deliver effective child protection but to align on shared values and build these vital cross-agency relationships. Training typically covers the reforms, safeguarding responsibilities, local practice frameworks and how different roles fit together across the system. There is both an opportunity within schools and an improved opportunity, from the role of the education practitioner in the multi-agency child protection teams, to ensure that that expertise is there.

I turn now to Amendment 38, which relates to sufficient resource and delegated functions. I spoke on this in the previous group. In fact, we have, understandably, talked about it in several groups so far in Committee. I will briefly revisit the key points. The new teams will be delivered as part of the existing joint and equal duty on safeguarding partners. I have previously mentioned the flexibility in the new measures, which enables teams to operate along police and health footprints, balanced with a sharp focus on multi-agency child protection delivery, where agencies are clear about their responsibilities and accountabilities. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, answered her own question. Of course it would not be the case that you would have the same number of multi-agency child protection teams in an authority such as Birmingham as you would have in Rutland; that would not be logical.

I am not sure that I would characterise this system as simply adding another child protection team alongside the current ones, as I think the noble Baroness said. As I said in my explanations on the previous group in particular, the intention is very much that these teams will be the place where agencies will be able to work together in the consideration of child protection cases and issues. They are quite distinct from the child protection teams that might currently exist.

In terms of resources, safeguarding partners already agree and dedicate resources as part of their local multi-agency safeguarding arrangements, and the Government have provided £500 million to support the rollout of the Families First Partnership Programme, of which multi-agency child protection teams are a part, as I said previously.

I do not want to be churlish about this, but I am not sure I would have rolled up to this Committee at this point to focus particularly on how difficult school and local government funding is if I had spent the last 14 years supporting the last Government. Nevertheless, it is an important point that we ensure that there is sufficient funding, which is why this Government have already increased, in real terms, funding going to both schools and local government.

On the group before last, we responded to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, about the consequences and the process of local government reorganisation. I think I gave some reassurance on that, provided to me by my noble friend Lady Taylor.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

It was great to hear about the training that the Minister’s son gets—that is fantastic. Can we therefore take it that these new duties in the Bill will involve no additional training, and that everything is covered by the training that she eloquently set out? Alternatively, will there be additional costs or training implications? It would be interesting to know that. Obviously, there is an array, as she rightly pointed out, but does she foresee that there will be any additional requirements?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Good training is already provided for teachers and teaching assistants, but my point was that the role of the education lead practitioner would both enable and need more training to be provided. I used the example of one of the pathfinders where that training had taken place. I suspect that, with those pathfinders, it would be appropriate if some of the additional money that had been made available contributed to that. I also made the point that it is already the case that statutory partners in safeguarding are providing resources for their safeguarding responsibilities. The point about multi-agency child protection teams is that they will enable that resource to be spent more effectively at the point when it will impact on children’s lives.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

I add to the Minister’s son’s view that a lot of this training is already being done. As a working teacher, I note that we do inset days and online and offline CPD. As far as I remember, it is still a requirement of Ofsted that every teacher, when questioned, should have a working knowledge of Keeping Children Safe in Education. A plea that has oft been made to me is to ask the Minister—I have asked previous Ministers too—whether, when Keeping Children Safe in Education is updated, that could be done before the beginning of September, so that inset days can be planned with the new guidance rather than the old.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am glad that the noble Lord reinforced my point—I think I am in big trouble with my son for having outed him in this debate. I am glad to hear that other excellent teachers have experienced this training. The noble Lord makes a very fair point. I will certainly go back to my colleagues in the department and say that, in reality, if we want people to be trained and updated on Keeping Children Safe in Education guidance, and if we expect that to happen at an inset day at the start of a school year, it would be a good idea if the guidance was there in time for them to be able to do that. That is a fair request.

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her answers. I reassure her that I was not trying to suggest that this is a whole new scale of undertaking for teachers. My noble friend Lady Barran was right: I was trying to understand the scale of it, because this is a big and complex Bill. The Minister was helpful in saying that her son, who is dealing with this on the front line, feels that one inset day will be sufficient for the kind of familiarisation that will be needed. I am not trying to put words in her mouth. I am trying to say that, in my experience, a Bill of this complexity will need quite a lot of CPD for our teaching cohort—that is where I am coming from.

We have a specific amount of time available, because of the 1,265 rule, which, again, we will work to. Every hour that is taken away from what teachers are doing at the moment is one that has to be filled. I take absolutely at face value what the Minister has said, and I am encouraged that she has in her immediate life someone who can give her front-line experience. I genuinely mean that, because that is where I am coming from. I tabled this amendment because head teachers in my academy trust had asked me to clarify the situation. It was put forward with the best of intentions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, since the very first inquiry into the tragic death of Dennis O’Neill in 1945, we have seen time and again that poor information sharing lies at the heart of serious child safeguarding failures. It is a persistent and deeply troubling issue, and if we are serious about protecting children, we must be serious about fixing this. I think there has been in this group of amendments with respect to this clause a pretty strong consensus around this House on that point.

The introduction of an information-sharing duty in Clause 4 marks a step forward in that mission, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, identified why, despite there being some progress, there is nevertheless still a need for the clarity and the permission provided by the duty in the Bill. In speaking to the amendments, I recognise that they raise important questions about how we will make this legislation work in practice. I will attempt to respond to as many as possible, and where I do not, I will try to ensure that I provide that information later.

Amendment 41 challenges the clarity and effectiveness of the duty to share information as set out in new Section 16LA. Let me be clear: as I have suggested, the new information-sharing duty is a significant development. It places a legal obligation on relevant organisations to share information to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. These organisations are already bound by a statutory duty to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children when exercising their functions.

I think it might be at this point that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, asked who was captured in new Section 16LA(4)(c) of the information-sharing duty. New paragraph (c) relates to those relevant people undertaking functions on behalf of those organisations with Section 11 duties—so, for example, GPs who work on behalf of NHSE and other individuals relating to those organisations with Section 11 duties. It responds directly to feedback in the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, which found that, despite legislation permitting information sharing for safeguarding, practitioners often see it as a barrier due to confusing organisational agreements and arrangements.

In developing this duty, officials have worked closely with the Information Commissioner’s Office, practitioners and other government departments to draft the measure. The duty is not about increasing the number of referrals to children’s social care—in fact, precisely the opposite, we could argue. It is about enabling practitioners to share and request information so that they can understand what life is truly like for a child and the significance of the information they hold. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, gave a good example of a whole range of different sets of information coming together to create a very different and worrying story about a child. I would also argue that it is probably a good example of a multi-agency child protection team being able to bring all that information together to decide on the action needed, but it exemplified how we can get a much clearer picture if we promote information sharing, which is what this duty is all about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendments 44, 47 and 48 all relate to the recording of information-sharing decisions, and they cover the two obvious situations: one where information is shared and one where it is not shared because the relevant person considers that sharing it would be more detrimental to the child than not sharing it. These amendments seek to clarify what the expectations are on all agencies, from the smallest childminder to the largest college, in terms of recording their decisions and the reasons for those decisions.

Keeping good records is obviously essential but it takes time and requires secure storage and access rights. Good record-keeping can improve safeguarding situations; for example, where there are changes of staff or somebody is on holiday and a new or temporary member of staff may not know the history of the case. Similarly, an agency may decide not to share information at one point and then decide at a subsequent point that it is in the best interests of the child’s safety and welfare to do so.

I would like to press the Minister on cases where the decision is made not to share information because of the fear that it would be detrimental to the child’s safety. As discussed earlier, we do not know what we do not know. So one piece of information might not seem overly worrying but, when pieced together with others, as we have discussed, the picture changes. Also, we need confidence that practitioners are considering these decisions with care. No one expects perfection in these areas but, rather, defensible not defensive decision-making.

Will the Minister comment in this regard on subsections (5) and (6), which I assume will be clarified in regulations? Having a clear decision-making process, to record as simply as possible the decision taken and the reasons for it, will improve the quality of decision-making. In a serious case incident, by which I mean when a child is killed or seriously harmed, it will be vital, so I ask again: how is this going to work in practice? I can see that, if you are a strong local authority, a strong trust or a large college, this might be close to business as usual, but what about the single small primary school head who has to deal with this, along with 55 other responsibilities, or the nursery or the childminder? I look forward to the Minister’s remarks. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments in group six, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Amendments 44, 47 and 48 seek to require practitioners to keep records of decisions made when processing information under the new information-sharing duty. I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that documenting such decisions is important for the reasons that she outlined. This principle is already embedded in the non-statutory guidance Information Sharing: Guidance for Practitioners and Managers, as well as in the Information Commissioner’s Office’s A 10 Step Guide to Sharing Information to Safeguard Children, both of which promote clear and proportionate record keeping.

In relation to the points that the noble Baroness made about smaller organisations having to carry this out, I shall read an extract from the non-statutory guidance that I think is helpful. It includes the advice:

“Record the reasons for your information sharing decision, irrespective of whether or not you decide to share information. When another practitioner or organisation requests information from you, and you decide not to share it, be prepared to explain why you chose not to do so. Be willing to reconsider your decision if the requestor shares new information that might cause you to regard information you hold in a new light. When recording any decision, clearly set out the rationale and be prepared to explain your reasons if you are asked”.


Furthermore, data protection legislation includes key principles such as lawfulness, transparency and, crucially, accountability, which require organisations to demonstrate compliance with data protection obligations.

Our plan is, as the noble Baroness surmised, to introduce statutory guidance covering matters such as appropriate record keeping. Agencies must have regard to the guidance in discharging the duty, which further strengthens the position of recording decisions. We think this strikes the right balance by ensuring that audit trails are in place, as she outlined, without placing unnecessary administrative burdens on practitioners who are already, as she said, working under significant pressure. I hope that has reassured the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Could the Minister perhaps show us an example of the kind of guidance that is already given to a childminder or a small primary school? Presumably that is going to be enhanced—I think she said that earlier. Are there, say, 30 questions? Is it just a small form? Is there an online option? Generation Z, of course, is increasingly keen to report online.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I did read an extract from the non-statutory guidance that already exists, Information Sharing: Advice for Practitioners Providing Safeguarding Services for Children, Young People, Parents and Carers. As I also said, there is the Information Commissioner’s Office’s A 10 Step Guide to Sharing Information to Safeguard Children. I am sure they are 10 straightforward steps.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Only 10 steps. I am reassured that the Minister has considered this carefully. I think my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe is right to probe gently in relation to the smallest organisations, where familiarity with this degree of responsibility may be less great and it could cause some anxiety. So, in addition to the guidance, there might need to be some support for those organisations—but I am sure the Minister will consider that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting and thought-provoking debate on an important topic: namely, how we use a unique identifier in the interests of safeguarding our children. Noble Lords have quite rightly raised some crucial questions for the Minister to answer, particularly relating to privacy and aiming to clarify His Majesty’s Government’s purpose in this clause.

We hope that the Minister will be able to shed further light on both the specific and broader issues. I believe Amendment 56, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, and Amendment 63, in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer, are both important as they seek to outline what should be in future regulations. We are interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on these, and seek to clarify if the Government would consider publishing draft regulations during the passage of the Bill.

Similarly, Amendment 62 in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer highlights the crucial issue of accurate and secure data collection, as well as the recording and storage of that data. I appreciate that technology has moved on, but many noble Lords will remember the child benefit data loss in 2007, the cyberattack and theft of data from the Legal Aid Agency only last week and the current disruptions from a cyberattack that one of our major high street retailers is facing. This is a real and present danger, which is only going to increase. The loose nature of the clause creates veritable and justifiable concerns.

On more specific issues, we are particularly interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on Amendment 54 in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer. Can she please give the Committee an example of a similar set of identifiers that is of general application? We also look forward to the Minister’s response to Amendment 59, in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran, which would, if accepted, allow this project to move forward on a much lower risk and much more affordable basis.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in group 7, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Farmer and Lord Lucas, and ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Cash. There has been consensus, once again, on a consistent identifier for children, also referred to as a single unique identifier, which has long been recognised as a powerful tool to improve information sharing across agencies. It featured prominently in both the Children’s Commissioner’s Family Review and theIndependent Review of Children’s Social Care, which described its potential to

“ensure that data can be easily, quickly and accurately linked”.

The reality is that, without a consistent identifier, professionals are forced to rely on a patchwork of variable data—names, dates of birth, addresses—all of which can change, be misspelled or be incomplete, as has been pointed out. This not only slows down the process but increases the risk of mismatches and missed opportunities to intervene early.

If we are serious about improving multi-agency working and safeguarding outcomes, then we must be equally serious about the infrastructure that underpins it. A consistent identifier is not a silver bullet, but it is a foundational step towards more integrated, responsive and effective support for children and families.

I recognise the spirit in which the amendments have been proposed and I will answer almost all the questions—in fact, I will be more ambitious and say that I will answer all the questions in my response.

Amendment 50 provides an opportunity for a broader —and welcome—discussion of the consistent identifier. This amendment, however, seeks to remove the provision for a consistent identifier for children, despite it being a clear manifesto commitment. I understand why that is the case.

I say in response to that probing amendment that we have deliberately made provision for the specification of a consistent identifier through regulations, rather than in the Bill. This allows us the necessary flexibility to pilot the use of the NHS number, for example, and to address the wide barriers to effective information sharing. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that we recognise in the piloting the need to ensure that this can be implemented for all organisations, including some of the small organisations that she identified, and we will test this through the piloting. Let me be clear: we will proceed only when we are confident of the benefits, costs, security, and governance of such a system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thought I was doing quite well, but I am afraid that I do not have the answer to that. If it is possible to find it out, I will let the noble Baroness know.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister profusely for the detailed response and thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. It has been a very helpful, probing debate and an opportunity for expression by so many experts of their concerns in this respect.

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining in such detail the consideration already given to these matters, particularly by reference to the conversations that have been taking place with medical professionals and the Information Commissioner. That is extremely reassuring to know, and we hope that that will continue and will be helpful.

The Government have an unenviable but laudable task ahead to implement this. I am sure I share the view of many of my noble friends in wishing them extremely strong success in achieving it, in the interests of all children and to safeguard against all future possible tragedies. The Minister will be grateful to know that I have nothing further to add, and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 50.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I was not going to intervene but, after hearing my noble friend, I cannot help but recall having to deal with some of the children of a man who, on inquiry, had had 11 sons by 11 different women. Because he was the sort of man he was, he insisted that each of them had his name.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Speaking as a Smith, I can say that those of us with very popular names recognise the point made by both the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston —although obviously not in quite the same way.

Before starting, I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that there are no publicly available figures specifically detailing how many incorrect NHS numbers are issued annually. If there were, obviously I would have them at my fingertips. The Personal Demographics Service is responsible for managing and correcting NHS number issues, including duplicates, misassignments and demographic errors, but those numbers are not publicly available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

As the Minister was speaking, I was thinking that the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has been campaigning for this for a very long time. I hope that she will be able to confirm that her officials would have involved the royal college in any discussions over any difficulties and doubts, because I think it would want to be very helpful. It represents, of course, the group of doctors who end up seeing some of the most severely damaged children.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am pretty certain that officials will have already consulted with the royal college, but, if they have not, I give the noble Baroness an undertaking that they will.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I again thank the Minister for her reply. I am not sure I heard exactly whether there will be more than one pilot or quite what the timeline was, but, at this hour on a Thursday evening, I will not press her on that. I trust her to update the House when she is able to say more.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her intervention. It is a reminder that we are so fortunate to be surrounded by such experts, and such patient and persistent ones—in a good way. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, having listened to what has been said about Amendment 61, I say briefly that it is very sensible, providing that the data can be kept safe. That is the caveat. If the Minister could address that point, that would inform the Committee as to where we can go with this.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I hope I can provide some reassurance to noble Lords about this. Amendment 61 seeks to ensure that the consistent identifier could be used for research purposes. I understand the concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton—and I commend him for his persistence in sitting this long to move his amendment—that the provision may appear to limit the use of the consistent identifier for research, which many stakeholders, and many noble Lords today, have rightly highlighted as a potential benefit. However, to be clear, these measures make provision for the Secretary of State to specify which agencies must use the consistent identifier and in what circumstances. Importantly, this does not prevent a consistent identifier being used for research purposes, provided that any such use is authorised in accordance with data protection and other relevant legislation.

We recognise the role of data in improving outcomes for babies, children and young people. As I say, this legislation is about when the consistent identifier must be used, rather than when it can be used, as regulations will mandate the number and the organisations required to use it. The consistent identifier could be used for research purposes, if this is authorised in accordance with UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act. We are aware of concerns around this, and officials are discussing this with key organisations. I hope that provides some assurance about the possibility of using the consistent identifier.

We have, in this legislation, deliberately prioritised use of the consistent identifier to facilitate the exercise of safeguarding and welfare functions directly. That is the basis on which we are testing its implementation and benefits through our pilot programme. If additional benefits, such as those for research, are realised, we will be in a strong position to explore how this could be facilitated. For the reasons I have outlined, and with some of the reassurance that I have provided, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment, having achieved his objective.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

I thank everybody who took part in that debate and say how optimistic the Minister’s answer has made me. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh for her intervention and I very much look forward to discussing this further.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

That last intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, was very interesting and useful in helping us through this amendment. There is absolute agreement about the need for contact centres, given the very important work that all noble Lords recognise they have done, also to be able to safeguard in the sorts of circumstances that she outlined. The question is whether that is most appropriately done through the provisions in this amendment, which would require all child contact centres to be nationally accredited and regulated by the Secretary of State and all staff to undertake specific training on safeguarding and domestic abuse. I hope I can provide some reassurance and outline why it is not necessary in this case for the Secretary of State to undertake the regulation and accreditation in the way that the amendment—if not the way it has been introduced—suggests.

We recognise the enormous importance of child contact centres in enabling children to spend time with a non-resident parent in a safe environment and the important work of the National Association of Child Contact Centres, which accredits centres across England and Wales and ensures high standards among its members via its national standards, which cover points such as risk assessments, safeguarding and hearing the voices of children. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, identified, Research into Safeguarding Processes in Child Contact Centres in England, commissioned by the Ministry of Justice and completed in 2023, identified limited evidence of unaccredited centres. In other words, most centres are accredited by the National Association of Child Contact Centres.

Here we come to the crux of whether there are ways of ensuring that children can be safeguarded in those circumstances. Since the 2023 review and report on child contact centres, which some noble Lords have referenced, the Ministry of Justice has worked with the National Association of Child Contact Centres to consider where action can be taken. The national association has now introduced a mandatory coercive control training course for its members and has reviewed and updated its national standards to take account of the findings of the report. It has also revised materials such as its risk assessment template. Additionally, the Ministry of Justice has established a child contact centre forum with representatives from across the family justice system to discuss the issues facing the sector and its role within the system.

In addition, as we have heard, in private law cases judicial protocol guidance, endorsed by the President of the Family Division, encourages judges and magistrates to refer families to NACCC-accredited centres only. This limits the extent to which unaccredited centres are used. We are becoming increasingly confident that NACCC accreditation delivers the protections that people rightly want to see and that there are very few unaccredited centres.

This amendment, however, would mean that there could never be any unaccredited centres. It is worth saying that there are limited circumstances in which unaccredited centres might be used. This could include, for example, unaccredited centres for specific and short-term purposes because of the individual circumstances of the case. One example might be when a child has a foster care placement some distance away from the nearest accredited contact centre; rather than requiring the child to travel a significant distance to undertake contact, the local authority might assess it to be in the child’s best interest to remain at a location closer to their home. However, in doing that—when considering child contact with parents and children—the local authority must ensure consistency with safeguarding and promoting the child’s welfare.

Social Mobility: Sutton Trust Opportunity Index

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Newcastle]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Sutton Trust’s Opportunity Index and what steps they are taking to increase opportunities for social mobility across the country.

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

My Lords, the Sutton Trust’s valuable report highlights that too many children face barriers to success because of who they are or where they come from. That is why, through the Government’s opportunity mission, we will break the link between young people’s backgrounds and their future success by tackling child poverty and ensuring that all children have safe and loving homes, get the best start in life, achieve and thrive in school, and develop skills to succeed in life.

[The Lord Bishop of Newcastle]

I thank the Minister for her Answer. The opportunity index shines a light on the great disparity of prospective outcomes for children and young people in London and the south-east compared with those in the north-east, particularly Newcastle. What consideration have the Government given to reforming the national funding formula to address some of the granularity of that disparity and improve chances for all our young people?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Funding is important, which is why the Government will consider the national funding formula and ensure that it focuses on the right places and addresses need in the way the right reverend Prelate outlined. But it is also important that we take action—across schools, for young people through training, and in the early years, when children need to have the best start in life. We have already started taking that action.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I thank the Sutton Trust for this piece of work. It is worrying that, of the 20 constituencies with the highest ranking for opportunity, all are in London. Among the top 50, all but eight are in London. The lowest, of course, are in the north, including Newcastle, followed by Liverpool. We have had levelling up—whatever happened to that? My concern is that, often, government works in silos, but issues such as this have to be across silos. Is there a case for a Minister having responsibility for getting hold of this issue and making a real difference?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The whole Government are responsible for ensuring that young people’s opportunity is not determined by where they come from or other factors of their background. That is why the Government have an opportunity mission, as I outlined in my initial Answer; it is owned across government, and all parts of government are expected to make a contribution to ensure that young people get the best start in life, that they can achieve and thrive in school, and that they are then able to gain the skills necessary to succeed further on in their lives.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, as we have heard, this excellent report highlights the uneven impact of where you live on your opportunities. For instance, a free school meals pupil in Stratford and Bow in London is over 10 times more likely to attend university than someone in Bristol North West. This brings to mind the findings of the 2020 report from the Social Mobility Commission, The Long Shadow of Deprivation. In response to that report, the Minister at the time pointed to the 12 opportunity areas, which later became 55 educational investment areas, as important for driving change. Can the Minister say what lessons were learned from both those programmes, which have now closed? Crucially, how are they being applied in the new approach that this Government are taking to addressing regional inequalities?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I think that the lessons that were learned are feeding every aspect of the work that is happening across the opportunity mission. For example, there is the need for high-quality schools and excellent teaching throughout the whole of the country; the need for young people to have the access to skills wherever they are in the country; the need for our higher education sector to do more to ensure that all those who can benefit from higher education can access it, which will be a key part of the Government’s higher education reforms; and, of course, the need to start early in children’s lives, to ensure that they have access to early years education of the highest quality. It is work on all those areas that will ensure not just that the benefits are felt equally across the country but that we are able to close some of the gaps that the Sutton Trust report identified.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Will the Minister look very carefully at social mobility in rural areas and, in particular, the fact that the rural deprivation grant was withdrawn, which has had a major impact in North Yorkshire? I pay tribute to the work in rural areas that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans has done as head of the Rural Coalition. He will be greatly missed in this House.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Baroness is right that there are particular challenges in rural areas—and, particularly, as she identifies, in terms of the pockets of poverty found there, where perhaps there is no infrastructure of support, that might explain why those children and young people in London are doing comparatively better than people in other parts of the country. She makes a very fair point, and we need to keep a focus on rural poverty and how we ensure that children and young people in rural areas get the opportunities that they deserve.

[Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)]

My Lords, when it comes to opportunity, a ubiquitous one is service in the Armed Forces, which offers access to the greatest number of apprenticeships, longer life expectancy and highly successful second careers. It probably represents the biggest engine for social improvement in the country. In the context of a dangerous world and 9 million people on benefits, might the Government not commit to a narrative that makes that more evident?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord makes an important point. I was discussing exactly that point with the Minister for Veterans just a couple of weeks ago; as he says, we were talking about the excellent apprenticeship programmes that there are within the armed services, as well as the opportunities that there are for young people who choose to take that route to benefit from it.

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

My Lords, long before the term “nepo baby” was ever invented, we understood the role of unpaid internships in ensuring that professions remain a closed shop for the offspring of the well-to-do, and how difficult it is for young people from ordinary backgrounds to move to London without contacts, where they simply cannot afford to work for free. The law is already clear that productive work should be paid at least the national minimum wage, but it is not enforced. Will the Minister talk to colleagues about the need to boost the labour inspectorate in the proposed fair work agency to ensure that young people from all backgrounds get the paid work that they need?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very important point. It is for employers to ensure that they provide access to the types of opportunities that will enable young people to experience different forms of work—but it is of course also the responsibility of those agencies tasked with enforcement to make sure that, where the law is not being properly applied, there are consequences for it. Of course, it is also our responsibility, which this Government take seriously, to make sure that all children have, for example, better careers education and the opportunity to have two weeks’ high-quality work experience and that we work with employers to ensure that placements are available to those young people doing T-levels while ensuring that apprenticeships are open to all. So there are a range of ways in which we need to make sure that young people get equal access to the experience of work that will set them up for a successful future.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the Sutton Trust opportunity index rightly looked at the importance of early intervention and the early years, and the Minister will be aware that there are about 50,000 children annually on free school meals who go into year 3 without sufficient reading skills to be able to engage successfully in the curriculum. Will the Minister agree to look at the Apex programme funded by the Fischer Family Trust, which has worked providing reading mentors to children in years 1 and 2 where there are significant concerns about their ability to read? At the end of year 2, 81% of them reach the expected standard in reading, compared with 60% for a comparable cohort, and 95% pass their phonics test, compared with 85% nationally.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The scheme that the noble Baroness talks about sounds interesting and important, and I shall certainly undertake for the department to look at it in detail. She makes an important point, as she did in the previous Question, about the need to ensure that children are supported to make a successful start at school at the point at which they arrive. That means the sort of support that the Government are providing through family help and Start for Life to support not only the children but the parents to provide learning environments at home. That is supported, of course, by this Government’s priority to ensure that more children arrive at school ready to gain the benefits of that education.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I have already expressed my views on Amendment 4, but I think I need to emphasise, particularly as my noble and learned friend has just made the same point, that I think it is unrealistic and unnecessary for private law cases. Many disputes resolved in private law cases are minor and concern perfectly manageable—I will not say “trivial”—problems over contact arrangements and so forth. That cannot justify a family group meeting.

In any event, as my noble and learned friend has said, the existing mechanisms are already well tuned to dealing with disputes. Cafcass gets involved at an early stage; there is what is called a safeguarding report; and if the dispute does not go away, Cafcass produces a Section 7 report. Along the way, there is a dispute resolution hearing in front of the judge, and noble Lords can take it from me that the judge applies a fair amount of pressure to resolve the matter and to explore the realities of settling the case, which quite often involves exploring what can be done with the wider family. Of course, the wider family may have the time and the resources that the parents lack and help sort it out, but it does not really need a meeting; it just needs someone getting the parties in a room in the court with the Cafcass officer to sort out the practical realities of where things are going. I wish to emphasise that I do not think that Amendment 4 will assist.

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

I recognise that the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is to test the extent to which family group decision-making can be used in other circumstances. I think it is a tribute to the significance and efficacy of family group decision-making that people are so keen to test where else it can be used in the process. I will respond to the two examples that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has identified and then address Amendment 17.

As we have heard, Amendment 4 would extend family group decision-making and, I have to say, was ably opposed by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I appreciate the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, in seeking to ensure that as many families as possible are offered the opportunity of family group decision-making, including those outside of public law proceedings. The Government recognise the importance of supporting families in private law proceedings. We want to help families resolve their issues quickly and without coming to court. That is why there are already requirements and processes—one of which the noble and learned Baroness talked about—that support families at this point. There is already a requirement, for example, that anyone wishing to make a private family law application must attend a mediation information and assessment meeting to discuss options to resolve their issue outside court, through mediation or other means. The Government also fund the family mediation voucher scheme, providing families £500 towards the cost of mediation. This scheme has helped nearly 40,000 separating parents. The noble and learned Baroness talked about other alternatives as well.

On the Section 7 welfare report, the explanation was ably given by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, but my understanding is that, as a welfare report, it can be requested by the court in any family proceedings where there are concerns about the welfare of a child. It is mostly done in private court proceedings, by the local authority if it is involved or by Cafcass if not. I am not convinced, for many of the reasons we have talked about, that this would be an appropriate point to mandate a family group decision-making meeting. I hope the noble Baroness is reassured about the other routes for supporting families in these cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, I support this amendment. Clearly, the family decision-making groups are extremely important, and we are discovering them rather late in the day. I could have said this on any of the other amendments involving family groups, but this one particularly caught my eye because of the emphasis on an evidence-based approach. The Scottish Government have had this for nearly 10 years, which gives us a tremendous opportunity to learn from the successes and failures they have experienced over that time. How much contact has the Minister had with her Scottish colleagues to learn from the best and the worst, and what has she taken from that to put into this Bill?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The fifth group we are debating comprises only one amendment, but we have had some useful contributions. However, quite a few of the arguments that I would make in response to this group were those that I made earlier in response to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Armstrong on the need for evidence-based practice and on the use of proven approaches such as that of family group conferencing. I will repeat some of the points I made and respond to some of the particular issues that have arisen.

On the last point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, I do not know the extent to which we have reviewed the experience in Scotland, but as we discussed earlier, we have looked extremely carefully at the research carried out by Foundations that we talked about earlier and the recommendations and approach that it brought forward.

I agree with the intention behind this amendment that we should ensure that family group decision-making follows an evidence-based approach and is co-ordinated by trained facilitators. That is very important, and I liked the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on this point about qualifications, and in this particular context he has identified a little discrepancy in the position of some noble Lords opposite.

The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, refers to the LGA saying that it thought that we should make it clear in guidance what that evidenced-based approach is. I wholly agree with him and the LGA, and that is why we will use statutory guidance to set out clear principles of practice, building on the evidence from successful models, such as the family group conference approach, to ensure that all families are offered quality family group decision-making. That includes people being trained to do it.

On the point about independent co-ordination, I made the point earlier that while I think that in the vast majority of cases it is right that there is independent facilitation, there might be circumstances where the family want the process to be run by a social worker who is somebody they have a very strong ongoing relationship with.

On the point about private family time, it is obviously an important potential part of the process that the family have the opportunity together, with appropriate preparation, to consider what would be appropriate for them, but here as well there could be circumstances—the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, referred to the issue of domestic abuse, for example—in which it would not be appropriate to leave only the family to lead that decision-making if there were fears that there was a dynamic within the family that perhaps made it important for there to be somebody else as part of that process. I think people could envisage a situation in which that happened.

This is not to say—I think this charge was made earlier —that the Government take a laissez-faire approach to the way in which family group decision-making is developed. We do not want to see a thousand flowers bloom, as was suggested by my noble friend Lady Armstrong earlier on; we want to see the right evidenced-based flowers blooming. In order to make sure that is the case, we will be very clear in the statutory guidance about the approach that needs to be taken when organising family group decision-making. I hope I was clear about that earlier on.

There is also a need to ensure that suitable people and resources are there, and that is why the Government have committed to an uplift of £13 million for the children’s social care prevention grant for 2025-26, which will be used to support the rollout of family group decision-making across the country for all families on the edge of care, including for recruiting or training extra staff to facilitate that process. On the basis of those assurances, I hope the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. It is important for all these children that we do everything we can to make sure that these processes can be implemented successfully, and ensuring that an evidence-based approach is followed is a key part of this. I briefly flag in particular the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, who said that this is a key last line of defence. It is extremely regrettable that we cannot fix all the problems—there will be issues that get through the net—and that is exactly why we need a key last line of defence to help with those problems.

I will also briefly flag the contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, and the noble Lord, Lord Agnew. They absolutely correctly pointed out that the evidence from Scotland is that the execution of the plan is critical, and an evidence-based approach is crucial. We would be well advised to learn from the experience of what has been taking place over the past 10 years and, I hope, take all the positives and learn from the negatives. On that basis, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after such knowledgeable contributions from all noble Lords. It is fair to say that all the amendments in this group are wrestling with the same issues, which have been raised by the Children’s Commissioner and by the independent review into child social care, led by the honourable member for Whitehaven and Workington.

We want to include education and childcare agencies in safeguarding arrangements. Indeed, schools already play a huge part in this area and make a significant percentage of safeguarding referrals where they have concerns about a child. But in practice it is hard, because of the number of organisations and their differing size and capacity.

We have heard from all sides on this, with many calling for full statutory partner status for education and childcare—such as in Amendment 24 from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield—while others are worried about workability. We fear that we may err on the side of caution regarding how full statutory partner status could work in practice, although we will of course reflect on the points made by all noble Lords.

We support the aims of Amendments 21 to 23 from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, who has such a depth of experience and understanding of these areas in general and of family hubs in particular. Amendments 20 and 25, from the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Bichard, aspire to have an inclusive and non-bureaucratic approach to these arrangements. Naturally, we fully support Amendments 26 to 28, from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, everybody who has contributed to this group has recognised that education and childcare are fundamental at all levels of safeguarding arrangements. The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, was right that there is a range of approaches to this, from those who argue that education needs to be a statutory safeguarding partner to those who, understandably, question how the Government’s proposals in this clause will work in practice, and I hope to bring a bit of clarity to that in my response.

We can all agree that education and childcare settings should be consistently involved in multiagency safe- guarding arrangements across England, and that is what this clause sets out to do. On the Clause 2 stand part notice, by strengthening the role of education in multiagency safeguarding arrangements, Clause 2 recognises that crucial role that education and childcare settings play in keeping children safe. The evidence of the way in which education has tended to be involved in safeguarding is that while in many schools there are reasonably well developed processes for safeguarding, including designated safeguarding leads and, of course, the focus that they are able to put on it, and while there are lots of places in the country where schools are being well engaged in safeguarding arrangements, it is not true, generally, that the whole breadth of education and childcare settings is engaged in that. My noble friend Lady Longfield made an important point about early years settings and their ability to contribute here, and of course FE colleges are far less frequently engaged in safeguarding arrangements.

The intention behind this clause is to ensure that education and childcare settings are consistently involved in multiagency safeguarding arrangements across England so that opportunities to keep children safe are not missed and we reduce the risk of children falling through the cracks between services. It places duties on those existing safeguarding partners—the local authority, police and integrated care boards—automatically to include all education and childcare settings in their arrangements. This will help to ensure that they work together to identify and respond to the needs of children in their area and that they consider in the fora in which safeguarding is pursued in these areas the relationships and processes that are necessary to ensure that the voice and knowledge of education and childcare settings are included in safeguarding arrangements. Where this is happening, we see improved communication between the safeguarding partnership and education, better information sharing and more opportunities to influence key strategic safeguarding decisions. This will also mean that all education and childcare settings must co-operate with safeguarding partners, ensuring that those arrangements are fully understood and rigorously applied in their organisations.

Turning to Amendments 26, 27 and 28 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I appreciate the point made that we need to understand how this will operate in practice and to understand the burdens and costs for education and childcare settings. On how it will operate in practice, the point I was making previously is that we are beginning to see how, where education and childcare are properly included, local authorities are resolving some of the practical issues that the noble Baroness raised and are finding the relationships, the forms of communication and the fora necessary to enable education and childcare to be properly represented in safeguarding arrangements, but she makes a fair challenge to me to explain a little bit more about how that is working. Perhaps I can write to noble Lords with some examples of how we would expect to see this operating in practice.

There are a couple of specific points that I can respond to today. First, on the point about identifying a single point of contact to be involved in safeguarding, if we are not careful, mandating that that happens would incur duplication, and new burdens and resourcing pressures, as there is no single point of accountability for the sector at the moment. I do not think the noble Baroness was suggesting that new posts should be created for this role.

She specifically asked about the role of the LADO. Can I be clear that the LADO role would not be appropriate to support education and childcare settings with their safeguarding responsibilities with respect to this clause unless it was in relation to allegations against people who work with children? That is the specific responsibility of the LADO and where this is the case of course the LADO can be contacted. But that would not be appropriate to be a single point of contact for safeguarding arrangements in this context. Through this legislation, as I think I have suggested, safeguarding partners should be continuing to strengthen existing relationships with education and childcare settings to ensure that there is join-up and an enhanced role in safeguarding arrangements.

On the point about accountability, we need to understand and have sight of how this is working. The Secretary of State has oversight of yearly reports by local children’s safeguarding partnerships which must include scrutiny by an independent person of the effectiveness of the arrangements. We will support safeguarding partners to ensure that this includes the representation of education. Through those yearly reports we will be able to see how education and childcare settings are being included in the safeguarding partnerships.

I turn to Amendments 20 and 25, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Bichard—introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton—and Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. They relate to the suggestion that education should become the fourth statutory safeguarding partner, and I think this was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. There are considerable difficulties in terms of structure and accountability with making education and childcare a statutory partner in the way in which he suggests. There is no organisation or individual who can take on the equivalent duties as a safeguarding partner for education.

I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, to the House. I am sure that her expertise in all areas of education and children’s social care will be important and helpful for us in our deliberations. She identified that a wide range of education and childcare settings would not be able to take on the equivalent duties as a safeguarding partner for education, because the expectation for those three statutory safeguarding partners is, first, that they have the authority to make decisions for all settings; secondly, that they are able to commit funding on behalf of all settings; and, thirdly, that they are able to represent the views of all settings.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey (LD)]

Nobody has spoken from these Benches because we did not expect to be talking in generalities. We welcome this very important Bill. As I listened to some important contributions, I found that those people who spoke about a particular issue, were short in their comments and stuck to the point made an incredibly valuable contribution. The more I listened, the more I thought that maybe there is a case for having a purpose clause where you set out where you are going. This is a large Bill, and the amendment paper is bigger than the Bill itself. That does not happen often.

The last Bill was the famous Schools Bill from the previous Conservative Government. Had they had a purpose clause in that Schools Bill, maybe it would not have been abandoned in the way it was. Maybe they would have thought that they were going to be hijacked by the academy lobby, with the few minor changes that were suggested in that Bill, and the purpose would have been thought through. Had it not been abandoned, we would have already sorted and carried through many of the issues that we have grappled with over the past couple of years, such as unregistered schools, hundreds of thousands of children missing, home education et cetera.

I was particularly taken by the comments about music from the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet. I remind her that we have to thank a Conservative Government and Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who introduced the national curriculum, because before the national curriculum, schools could do whatever they liked. The only subject they had to teach was religious education. By having a national curriculum, we said nationally that we wanted our children to learn these subjects. My view now is that we should have a national curriculum, but that the national curriculum must leave space to do other things as well, and I think that is a common view. Going back to the contribution by the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, in which she talked about music, it is about not only the national curriculum but the dreaded EBacc, which has seen the number of people studying music in schools plummet as a result of its attack on creative education.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, on her speech. It was spot on, and it made me think quite clearly. I think that Part 1 is going to make a huge difference to children and families. Some of the amendments to Part 1, whether on kinship carers or whatever, will be life-changing if they are agreed.

On Part 2, we are clearly going to be divided. I have nothing particularly against academies. I am involved with an academy. I think we want to take the best of what academies do and make it available for all schools, perhaps in a reformed way, but I also want to do away with the excesses that academies seek. Academies should not be deciding—I am doing what I should not be doing. I am doing a general debate. Stop it. I want to look at particular issues.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, started quite rightly. Governments of all political persuasions, when there is a problem that they do not know how to solve, often get an expert. They drag an expert in and say, “We want you to look at this problem”. Nine times out of 10, they do not follow through on the recommendations, or they just take part of the recommendations. With safeguarding, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is absolutely right that Eileen Munro, an expert in her field, put forward some important recommendations, and they were quite rightly being piloted. We should learn from that piloting whether that is the way we should go. The Government must show what the evaluations of those pilots have shown. That is not a shameful thing. It is a sensible thing to do. If the evaluations show that, yes, this is great, let us do it. If they show that there are problems, perhaps we need to modify what we are doing. I hope the Government will think along those lines.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Nash, that I remember being very proud of serving on the Children and Families Act 2014 Committee. I think everyone on that committee felt that we had done a good job. It was one of those Bills that you actually enjoyed being involved with. At the end, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, organised a sort of celebration where we all got certificates and awards for various contributions we had made to the Bill.

However, on reflection, I wish we had piloted some of the key recommendations. Education, health and care plans are, quite frankly, in an appalling mess. Maybe we should have piloted those proposals to see whether they worked and got an evaluation. We would have then known the correct way to go. We should never have got rid of school action and school action plus. We should have kept general special needs in schools. That has gone, at the expense of education, health and care plans.

I end by assuring the Government that we will be constructive in everything we do, and we will support amendments, wherever they come across the Chamber, if we think they will actually enhance opportunities for families and young people.

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

My Lords, I thank noble Lords, not only those who have contributed today but those who have already contributed to the discussions on this important Bill at Second Reading. In fact, people enjoyed Second Reading so much that they decided they would have another go today.

The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, accused me of wanting to dismiss any amendments. That is wholly wrong; I want to get on to discuss the detail of those amendments in this Committee, as is the function of this stage. On this occasion, I fear that Amendment 1 not only is unnecessary but has been tabled to delay our detailed consideration of the significant legislation before us.

First, from a legal perspective, the proposed new clause would not have meaningful, practical effect. Secondly, on the point that many noble Lords have referred to about being clear about the purpose, intent and the outcome of this Bill, Ministers in the other place and at the Bill’s Second Reading in this place have been clear about the purpose of this critical legislation. I will use this as an opportunity to remind the Committee of what the Bill will achieve. This is a landmark Bill that will reform both children’s social care and education to ensure that, for all our children, background does not mean destiny and that at every stage of life, young people are supported to achieve and thrive.

As is already outlined in the Bill’s policy summary notes, the Bill has seven key ambitions. Its Explanatory Notes set out what each measure in the Bill aims to achieve and how it will do so. There will rightly be ample time in Committee to discuss these in the detail they deserve, and to listen to concerns and issues that have been raised by noble Lords and others. I hope to provide assurance on those or, where necessary, change them.

An ambition running through the whole Bill is to make up for lost time—14 years in fact—when action could have been taken to strengthen child safeguarding, to ensure that no young person slips out of sight of the agencies designed to advance their education and opportunities, and to set a minimum, a floor but no ceiling, on the standards we expect in every school across our country to enable every child to achieve and thrive.

In Part 1, the Government aim to keep families together and children safe, to support children with care experience to achieve and thrive, and to fix and support the care placement market. Importantly, the Bill will help more families to thrive together, while keeping children safe from harm and supporting them to succeed. Through the introduction of a duty on local authorities to offer a family group decision-making meeting—which I hope we will come on to discuss shortly—we are prioritising helping families and tackling problems before they become crises. This model builds on what we know works well.

Keeping children safe is a key purpose of the Bill. That is why, after years of inaction under the previous Government, we are legislating to stop children falling through the cracks and to ensure they are not out of sight of those who can keep them safe. As we will come on to discuss today and later in Committee, this is why we are legislating to introduce a single unique identifier, registers of children not in school, and new duties around information sharing. The Bill will also allow for more effective intervention when children are at the greatest risk of harm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I speak in support of this amendment and wish the Government to explore whether it is possible at an earlier stage for these meetings to be considered.

My noble friend referred to the delay, with parents saying that there was going to be a meeting and not turning up to it. As I read the amendment, it includes

“parents or any other person with parental responsibility for the child”,

who must be offered the meeting. There may be circumstances in which the court has previously made a special guardianship order that leaves the parents with only aspects of parental responsibility, which are to be told of a name change or to be told that the child will be leaving the jurisdiction. That is a very limited amount of parental responsibility. If for whatever reason—often due to illness of the special guardian—the risks rematerialise and you are back into care proceedings, is it envisaged that such parents, who may not have heard anything for a number of years because the child has not left the jurisdiction and not had their name changed, will be included in the mandatory duty to be offered to be part of this decision-making process? If that is the case, if the logic is correct, you are stacking the cards for the situation that my noble friend has mentioned where parents are suddenly back involved and then delay the meeting. How would this provision sit with an existing special guardianship order that has that effect on parental responsibility?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Good. I mean that it is good that we are now into the detail of what it is that we are here to consider. I am very pleased at the support and welcome for the process of family group decision-making, which I know is behind all the amendments and contributions that have been made today.

This measure places a duty on local authorities to offer a family group decision-making meeting to the child’s parents, or any other person with parental responsibility for the child, before an application for a care or supervision order is made. This Government want to help more families to stay together by mandating the offer of a family group decision-making meeting for every family at the point before it is necessary to initiate care proceedings for a child. I very much appreciate the intentions of the amendments that have been tabled, which tally with the Government’s aim to maximise the impact of family group decision-making. But I hope, therefore, that I can reassure noble Lords that these amendments are not necessary to achieve that.

I know that the amendments seek to balance the provision of family group decision-making with the need to avoid delay to child arrangements proceedings or permanent arrangements. I think we have been supported in this consideration today by the considerable expertise of noble, and noble and learned, Lords, but we believe that this balance is already provided by the existing statutory frameworks and guidance.

I agree very much with the noble Baroness that all family networks should have the chance to benefit from the transformative family group decision-making process at multiple points in their journeys with children’s services. I think the argument being used is that if this is as effective as it is, should families not have the opportunity to benefit at different stages? The Government wholeheartedly agree with that. Indeed, in relation to Amendment 2, the Working Together statutory safeguarding guidance makes this clear and sets out the activities that a local authority and its partners should undertake where there are child protection concerns under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989. This includes the use of family group decision-making as part of child protection planning.

I understand the points made by noble Lords that using this as early as possible in the child’s journey and repeating it as necessary is important: that is in fact what local authorities are encouraged to do. Again, on the point about the evidence, the £45 million Families First for Children pathfinder and the Family Network pilot aim to make greater use of family networks, involving them in decision-making at an earlier stage and providing practical and financial support via family network support packages to help keep children safe at home. There is, as noble Lords have mentioned, robust evidence from research which shows that children can be diverted from care when family group decision-making is offered at the pre-proceedings stage.

I come to the reason that the legislation focuses the duty at the point it does. The new duty for family group decision-making to be made at the pre-proceedings stage ensures that every parent is given the offer at this critical stage before care proceedings are initiated. This voluntary process enables a family network to come together and make a family-led plan in response to concerns around a child’s safety and well-being. We are confident that the new duty, alongside the existing framework for child protection, is sufficient to support children to stay at home safely where this is possible.

The noble and learned Lord identified that there is a very clear message set by making the statutory duty in this legislation that there is an expectation at the point of the use of a family group decision-making process, but that is in order to emphasise at the point at which we believe, from the evidence, that it will certainly be able to prevent more children going through the process of being taken into care. That is not to say that it is not beneficial at other stages. I hope and believe that, both through the statutory guidance and through guidance that already exists, we be able to make that very clear to local authorities. There is robust evidence from research which shows that children can be diverted from care when family group decision-making is offered at the pre-proceedings stage.

Amendment 15 seeks to ensure that, in providing for family group decision-making, there is a child-centric approach that accounts for the best interests of children under two. I wholly understand the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about the need to ensure the best interests of the child, particularly at such a young age. Of course, local authorities already have a duty to act in the best interests of the child, and that includes consideration of their age. Equally, if it is not in the child’s best interest for family group decision-making to take place, the offer should not be made to the family. This is an important point. We need to be clear that the offer is in the child’s best interests for it to be effective. Local authorities may also withdraw the offer of a meeting if it is no longer in the best interests of the child for the meeting to take place. I hope that that partially responds to the points made about delay and about others not being able to use the meeting process as a way of delaying or bringing other pressures to bear on the family environment.

On Amendment 16, the Government are committed to reducing unnecessary delay in the family courts and securing timely outcomes for children. However, as I have already identified, Clause 1 relates to a specific point before court proceedings are initiated, where robust evidence shows that strengthening the offer of family group decision-making will reduce family court applications and prevent children entering the care system. On some of the particular questions about delays, I can assure noble Lords, as was suggested, that these points about delay will be covered in statutory guidance. I think I have already made it clear that a local authority will be able to withdraw the offer of the meeting or the process if it believes that it is being used for delay, which would clearly not be in the best interests of the child. On the point about whether it will delay interim and emergency orders, I am pretty confident that it will not, but I am prepared, because it is an important point, to come back to noble Lords in writing.

We are therefore confident that no provisions in Clause 1 would result in an extension to the 26-week limit for care proceedings, which starts, of course, when an application for a care order is made—in other words, after the point at which the family group decision-making process is used. I hope that I have managed to reassure noble Lords about what would happen if other things were to cause delay in the proceedings and reassure them that we believe in, and have evidence for, the efficacy of this process. That is why, although this is a statutory duty at one point in the process, we are very clear and will continue to encourage and develop, through the Families First programme, the use of family group decision-making at all stages of the process, because of its effectiveness. I hope that has reassured all noble Lords and that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, I would be grateful if she would outline the response—maybe she needs to write to me—on the specific situation that I raised in relation to special guardianship orders. I recognise that there is a best-interest test, but, as the main clause of the Bill reads at the moment, parents with that limited parental responsibility are covered by the duty and it would be good to have some clarification.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I cannot answer that today, but I certainly undertake to write to noble Lords on that important point and that juxtaposition in relationship.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. It is a privilege to have the experience of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and others around the House on this. In response to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on our drafting, I feel I need to make a general plea for noble Lords to listen to the intent of what we are trying to do rather than focus on the specific wording. We were not intending to change the spirit of the Bill on pre- proceedings.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, which I have co-signed.

Family group conferencing was born out of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 in New Zealand, whereby families became key participants in a process of decision-making. Family group conferences are now used in approximately 30 countries worldwide and in at least 22 countries in Europe. Indeed, research has shown that children whose families were referred to a family group conferencing at the pre-proceedings stage were significantly less likely to be in care 12 months later than those whose families were not so referred. This should not be a surprise to your Lordships, as such preparation and discussions offer a compelling opportunity for families to come together and unite around important decisions for their child, which has the benefit of making that child feel loved and wanted, as well as the ability to address with professionals any glaring gaps in the child’s well-being.

Amendment 3 is a simple amendment that seeks to extend the right to family group decision-making meetings to children aged 16 and 17. It is surely important that we allow children who are on the brink of adulthood to take part in decisions that could materially affect their lives. That would appear to be eminently sensible. At the age of 16, a child can agree to their own care plan, so by that very same logic it is fair and reasonable that they are involved in the family group decision-making process. This is a family-led process and is absolutely essential in keeping children with their families where possible. We should be avoiding at all costs children going into care; that should be the absolute last resort. So, allowing 16 and 17 year-olds to share their voice and their opinions would ensure that this process is as child-focused and effective as it can be. It is essential that family group decision-making is done right, and ensuring that older children are able to contribute would be an extremely positive step in that direction.

I am very pleased to see that I believe this sentiment is shared by the noble Baronesses, Lady Armstrong, Lady Longfield and Lady Drake, with the amendment tabled in their names. Proposed new subsection (7A)(c) in their Amendment 12 seeks to achieve what the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, and I are aiming for, and we very much hope there will be cross-party support from other noble Lords on this important foundation stone.

Amendments 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, seek to set out key principles when implementing the family group decision-making process. Amendment 7 seeks to ensure that there is a process that accompanies these meetings. It is important that they are not isolated events but that instead the process is child-led and includes the family throughout.

Amendment 8 is similar in spirit to Amendment 5, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which will be debated later, so I shall only briefly touch on the issues, but we absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, that a trained co-ordinator would prove an excellent addition to the family group decision-making team.

Amendment 9 rightly notes that an essential part of a proposal regarding concerns about a child’s welfare is the implementation of the proposal so that the best outcomes for that child can be put in place.

Amendments 10 and 11 seek to ensure that the parents or those with parental responsibility for the child, rather than the local authority, agree as to who may attend the family group decision-making meeting. It is important that those who know the child ensure that the relevant voices are heard.

Amendment 19 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, with its proposed new clause after Clause 1, aims to ensure that there is proper oversight of the child protection plan if a child under the age of five is subject to care proceedings. It is of critical importance that the matter of the child having been significantly harmed or being at risk of the same is kept in view given the general length of proceedings and the risk of harm during them. Many local authorities discharge the child protection plan and associated formal processes when the proceedings are issued; the child’s care also often moves to the court social work team. Many of these children are living with the parents where the harm, or risk of it, is happening, and this is why they must be protected during proceedings, which run on average for 52 weeks. Their protection and arrangements for formal monitoring must be maintained at all costs. Indeed, the risk to the child might actually be raised during proceedings given the pressure on their parent or parents.

We acknowledge that this amendment has a potentially arbitrary cut-off, but it does cover preschool-age children, who all too often have been the subject of serious case incidents, when the tragedy of a child losing their life or being seriously harmed has occurred. This amendment aims to be the grit in the system that ensures that a senior, fresh pair of eyes looks at such cases to ensure that a child protection plan is not ceased without their approval.

Regarding specific amendments concerning child attendance at these meetings, set out in Amendments 13 and 14, we regret that we do not support proposals that would permit children to attend these meetings. Of course, as we have heard from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, the voice of the child is crucially important, but we are concerned that the attendance by the child could potentially be traumatising, create a sense of rejection and constrain necessary conversation. This must be child-centric and the child must be heard, but possibly not in these meetings.

Amendment 18 in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer seeks to ensure that the changing needs of the child are considered throughout childhood. It is important to recognise the changing family landscape and, as such, this amendment is a sensible one as the “family network” may be able to support the child. If that is possible, the local authority should take action so that the child can benefit from such support as and when it becomes possible.

In conclusion, family group decision-making has tremendous potential to transform outcomes for vulnerable children, but only if we achieve the scope and implementation correctly. We urge careful consideration of these amendments to ensure that this promising approach will deliver on its full potential.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps I might say how both interesting and informative I found the contributions on this group of amendments. It is something to be in this House and be able to hear the experiences of those, like my noble friend Lady Armstrong, who has experience as a social worker and a long history of campaigning and policy-making in this area, my noble friend Lady Longfield, who, of course, was an important and impactful Children’s Commissioner, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who just gave us a small exposition of the enormous experience that she has in this area—and many others, as well, who have made important points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I very much welcome my noble friend’s recognition of the importance of the voice of the child, but the point was made from around the Committee that the principle derives from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. She did not mention children’s rights in the UN convention, so it would be reassuring if she put on the record that she acknowledges that this is an important thread that runs through many of the provisions in the Bill.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We recognise that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is an important thread, but that does not necessarily mean that it can be used as a trump card on every future occasion, which I am sure my noble friend would not choose to do. I think I clearly said that the rights and voice of the child have to be absolutely at the heart not only of the Bill but of the way in which it is implemented throughout children’s social care.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I just wonder whether the Minister was referring to my Amendment 17, rather than my Amendment 19, in her response. She talked about not making an assumption that a child would need a child protection plan if they were going into kinship care, which is linked more to Amendment 17. Amendment 19 is about the plan not being dropped for a child under five who is already on a child protection plan and goes into care proceedings. I am very happy for her to pick that up in another group, if we are allowed, but I wonder whether there has been some confusion.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It may be that in part of my response I pre-empted the point that the noble Baroness is making in Amendment 17, but I did recognise the point about Amendment 19, which I think the noble Baroness made, about the process in place to discharge that particular child protection plan. On that, I outlined that we are confident that the current system and the strengthened focus on multiagency child protection are robust and that there is sufficient accountability around discharging child protection plans. If I have not sufficiently reassured the noble Baroness about that, I am willing to write to clarify the points I was trying to make on that amendment.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her reply, which was very encouraging, as especially was the spirit in which the debate happened. Things seem to have calmed somewhat.

I did not quite get what I wanted, so I will reserve the right to think about it for Report, but I hope we can keep the dialogue going. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Assistive Technology

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and I remind the House of my declared interests.

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

My Lords, the Government are committed to increasing awareness of assistive technology and building digital skills for disabled people. The Department for Education is promoting evidence-based practice and expanding assistive technology use with new research and national training for teachers in 2025. The Department for Work and Pensions is improving the Access to Work scheme and consulting on its future through the Pathways to Work Green Paper.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that quite helpful response—it happens every now and again. Would she give us some assurances that we will not get bogged down in issues of diagnosis but will go to a needs-based reaction for the technology? To get an assessment for a neurodiverse condition can cost you £750. That delays the process. Can we get to something where, if you have an identified need, we address that need more quickly?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for recognising me being quite helpful—I am starting the day as I mean to go on. He makes an important point; if he is particularly referencing the disabled students’ allowance then I understand his point. More broadly, the Government are bringing together people who need to use assistive technology, alongside tech companies and others, in the assistive technology working group, which is an important way to identify not only how quickly people can make use of assistive technology but how that technology can be developed to help people further.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as the chief executive of Cerebral Palsy Scotland. A vast amount of a child’s communication development takes place in the first two years of life. Without AAC specifically in these years, these children are already at a significant disadvantage, yet too many children are not referred to speech and language therapists until after the age of two. The practice of having to prove competence in order to receive an AAC system, for example, is one unnecessary barrier. How will the Minister ensure that the assessment for and availability of AAC mirrors that of typical language development and is a priority for these early years?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises a specific point, although her broader point about the need for earlier assessment is one that the Government wholly recognise. We are, for example, providing further training for those in early years settings to be able identify needs earlier. As she says, we need to get better at the specifics around how we identify a need for assistive technology. That is part of the reason for training teachers, for example. I will take back her point about how we ensure that that happens as early as possible.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, the present system is time-consuming, as the pupil often has to wait quite a long time, and it is costly. Would it not be sensible to use the expertise of qualified SENCOs in schools to speed up the process?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that SENCOs play an important role in identifying a need for assistive technology. That is why SENCOs receive specific training on how to use assistive technology. From this September, as part of initial teacher training, all teachers will receive training on the use of assistive technology. In that way, I hope that more teachers will understand the benefits for children and that the equipment will be used in schools not just more quickly but more effectively.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Assistive Technology recently recommended the creation of a centre for assistive technology to pull together the strands of exciting innovation to the benefit of students with disabilities and those in employment. Can the Minister update the House on the Government’s response?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am aware of the important work that the all-party group does and the specific recommendation for the centre that the noble Lord outlines. I understand that my right honourable friend Stephen Timms is working on the short-term improvements to the distribution of assistive technology, as spelled out in the Government’s Pathways to Work Green Paper, and thinking about how to develop the type of centre that the noble Lord and the APPG were talking about.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the fact that those new to the profession will be trained on assistive technology. That is a brilliant departure. I wonder if she can say anything more about the kind of catch-up that is obviously needed for those who may have been in the profession for some time.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is right. I made the point about the training provided to SENCOs, which means that there is capacity within schools to make sure that all teachers have an understanding of the potential uses of assistive technology and that the SENCOs are able to focus particularly on those children identified as needing it. There is always a problem when you focus on those new to the profession, but I am sure that they will bring renewed knowledge and enthusiasm that others in the staff room will be able to benefit from.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said recently, there is very good evidence that those with disabilities or special needs benefit from edtech. One has to look only at Orchard Hill College, one of south London’s largest SEND schools, which received its third consecutive outstanding Ofsted rating, with inspectors praising assistive technology. In government two years ago, we set up the assistive technology test and learn scheme in 151 schools across the country, with really positive feedback results. Will the Minister confirm that her Government will continue what was widely recognised as an excellent initiative?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Earl is right that that research—which, to be fair, happened under the last Government—is an important basis on which we can now expand the ability to use, and improve the use of, assistive technology across schools and education. That research has identified the barriers in the system and the opportunities to address them. It is why, as I have already said, we will be able to expand workforce training, improve connectivity and facilitate better multiagency working. We will be publishing research on that later on, in the summer. I think those things will make a genuine difference to assistive technology users across the country.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, some years ago, my granddaughter had to move school in order to be identified as having dyslexia. She was treated as stupid at the first school. She then had wonderful training from the school she went to—a brilliant primary school in Kentish Town. What sort of training are teachers getting to at least identify that dyslexia is there?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble and learned Baroness raises a really important point. We need to ensure that all teachers are, first of all, able to be special needs teachers, because that is their role. Secondly, we need to ensure the much earlier identification of those children with special needs. That needs to start, in many cases, before children even get to school. That is the reason why we have improved the guidance and training for those in early years settings and are improving the support available to schools to be able to identify children much earlier, including those with dyslexia, so that action can be taken. There is, of course, more that we need to do in this area, which is why special educational needs reform is a key priority for this Government and the Department for Education.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, how will the Minister work with Department of Health colleagues to ensure that there are sufficient speech and language therapists, not just teachers, to enable this population to engage in their education?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

There is a need for multiagency work not only at a local level but across government, as the noble Lord has identified, and I have talked about the work being done with the Department for Work and Pensions. He is right that the ability for children to have the best start in life, and particularly for those with special needs to have them identified and dealt with, requires joint working between the Department for Education and the Department of Health. In governance, we join up on that in the opportunity mission that is at the heart of this Government’s work. I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State works very closely with the Secretary of State for Health to make sure that that join-up happens and, more importantly, that those professionals and that resource are available for children when they need them.

Schools: Mobile Phones

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie]

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

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

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

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Lord Storey (LD)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

Antisemitism on University Campuses

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Lords Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sport: Supreme Court Ruling on Sex and Gender

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan]

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

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

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

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green (CB)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Lord Addington (LD)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

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

“we will not rush our response”,

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

Pupil Absenteeism

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough]

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

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

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

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Lord Addington (LD)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

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

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill read a second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

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

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

Motion agreed.