School Admissions: Selective Inclusion

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report by the Sutton Trust Selective Inclusion, published on 24 March, which found that the top 500 secondary schools admit a lower proportion of pupils eligible for both free school meals and special educational needs support than live in their catchment area.

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

My Lords, as set out in our White Paper, Every Child Achieving and Thriving, all children should have access to high-performing schools. However, more could be done to reduce barriers in the system, particularly for children from disadvantaged backgrounds and children with SEND. We will ensure that all mainstream settings are welcoming to children with SEND by investing £1.6 billion over three years to support early years settings, schools and colleges to become inclusive by design. We will also develop new resources to support and encourage schools to use existing provisions within the code, such as the ability to prioritise children eligible for the pupil premium, to adopt more inclusive admission arrangements.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that response. She mentioned the existing requirements on school admissions, but as the Sutton Trust report revealed, 36% fewer pupils with SEND from disadvantaged backgrounds are accepted in the higher-performing schools. The current rules are simply not doing the job that they are intended to do. That is often a double disadvantage for these children, because the Sutton Trust figures show that it is often children with SEND eligible for free school meals, rather than SEND pupils as a whole. As we await a consultation on a new School Admissions Code, does my noble friend agree that the rules need to be strengthened if the Government are to be able to achieve their aim of more SEND pupils being educated in mainstream schools?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I think we need to make sure that all schools achieve the levels of inclusive education necessary to support children with special educational needs and disabilities. That is the reason for the investment we are putting in place, the emphasis we are placing on inclusion—for example, through our RISE teams across the country—and the new emphasis that Ofsted will have, when inspecting schools, on the inclusive nature of what is being offered within them.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Knowledge Schools Trust. In light of this Sutton Trust report, does the Minister share my misgivings about the Government’s decision to impose VAT on independent school fees? The 30,000 pupils who have now left the independent sector will be beating a path to the doors of these 500 high-performing comprehensives, which will mean even fewer places for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

No, not least because, if we are to put the investment into our state schools that the 94% of children who use them need, we need to ensure that that is properly funded. On concerns about independent school closures, which I understand, I am sure noble Lords will be reassured that in 2025 more private schools opened than closed. There are 41 more independent schools in 2026 compared with 2025 and, in fact, the overall fall in private school pupil numbers reflects demographic change across the whole school system.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, will the Minister enlighten us on exactly how the Government will make sure that there is an aggressive approach under this new SEN system to identify and support students and that this is reflected widely in things such as Ofsted reports? What is measured gets done, and at the moment it is quite clear that many schools are not taking that aggressive approach to make sure the right help gets to the pupils who need it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am not sure I would characterise it as an aggressive approach, but it is certainly a key element of the Government’s SEND reform that we ensure children get the right support, whether in their early years setting, their school or their college. That is why we are investing in new training for all staff, better buildings and equipment, and will make sure that every setting has access to expert professional support when it is needed. An inclusive education system for all children and young people requires a strong universal offer, built on high-quality adaptive teaching and early effective support. We will equip and empower mainstream settings to become inclusive by design and to remove commonly occurring barriers to learning. We will invest £4 billion more over the next three years to ensure that happens.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, the OECD PISA survey looks at whether the school that children attended makes a difference to their attainment. Contrary to some of the assumptions underlying the Sutton Trust report, it makes less difference which school you attend here in the UK than in many other countries; we are below average, and that is a good thing. Does the Minister therefore acknowledge that forcing every school to fit one profile risks further constraining parent choice, with very little benefit to the children?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I welcome the noble Baroness to her new role, and I am looking forward to working with her. The answer to ensuring that parents have the choice they want and deserve is to enable all schools to be the type of good schools that any of us who have or have had children would want our children to go to. That means ensuring that we have more teachers in our schools, which we are focused on; ensuring that all schools follow a revised national curriculum; and investing properly in them. These are all things that this Government have focused on, and we will continue to do so to ensure that every parent has the choice of a good school for their child.

[Lord Isaac (Lab)]

My Lords, it is excellent to hear the Minister identify that there will be more resources to reduce the barriers for children with SEND. But in the Sutton Trust report there were specific recommendations to increase the number of teaching assistants and to promote a fair access review. Will she give us some reassurance that that is part of what the Government are considering?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As well as the investment we are putting in, particularly for children with special educational needs and disabilities, we will consult on changes to the School Admissions Code to support fairness for all families, particularly the most disadvantaged. That will include improvements to how fair access protocols are managed by local authorities, requiring schools to give parents more information about decisions on in-year admission and, where they operate, making the operation of banding arrangements clear. Certainly, the first two of those will be very important for supporting parents in thinking about children with special educational needs and disabilities, and enabling them to get into the good schools that they would choose for them.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I too welcome my noble friend to her place on the Front Bench. Does the Minister agree that we should congratulate and celebrate the 500 schools in this country that have added most value to the pupils attending them, rather than trying to pick holes in their performance?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am not quite sure what the noble Baroness is referring to. I am always more than happy to celebrate the work of teachers and others in schools across this country that achieve enormously important progress for children every day. What is more, as a Government we have a responsibility to ensure that is available in as widespread a way as possible.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

Will my noble friend spread the news to all pupils in England that they are lucky they do not live in Scotland, where there is a declining education system under the failing SNP Government?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I always try my best to spread the news about the excellent work that teachers in England are doing and, of course, the excellent work that this Government are doing to support them.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend or her department have any information about the number of teachers currently working in our schools who have themselves at some time in the past needed special educational provision? To what extent are those teachers able to contribute to the way in which we provide for young people with special educational needs now?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

That is a very interesting question. Although I have to admit that I do not have that information at my fingertips, I have no doubt that having had some of those experiences yourself would probably support you, as a teacher, to recognise the needs of the children you were teaching. But we cannot depend on that, which is why the Government have invested £200 million to ensure that all teachers, from early years through to post-16, have the opportunity for the necessary professional development to enable them to recognise and support children with special educational needs and disabilities.

Children’s Social Care: Enduring Relationships Strategy

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I also welcome the Statement. It is important that we in this House send a strong message to young people in care that we are on their side. I know that on many occasions my noble friend Lord Purvis, who has just left his place here, has referred to those young people as having the richest parents—the corporate parents of the state—but often the state, particularly at the local level, has not been there to support them, so we welcome this enduring relationships strategy for children in social care. We have long believed that every child, no matter where they are and what their circumstances are, deserves the best start in life. That is what we want for our children. We the state, at both a national level and a local level, are the corporate parents, and if that is good enough for our own children, it should be good enough for the children under our responsibility.

We have long advocated for children in care because they have often been the ones who are overlooked, particularly those who reach adulthood but clearly still have issues. This overlaps with the debate that I am sure we will have following the Milburn review on NEETs, because those who have been in care are often overrepresented as NEETs. I am sure I will come back to that topic at a later date.

For too long, we have talked about the fact that some young people live in broken relationships. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Tyler, who wanted to be here but could not, because she has long campaigned for children. Often, one sibling is in care and the other is not. Maintaining that relationship is something for which she has campaigned for many years. I thank the Minister for her efforts to support the efforts of my noble friend, so that we were able to get that into the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act in the last Session of Parliament. That was an important change in the law and guaranteed that children in care are supported to stay in contact with their brothers and sisters. We want to make that upbringing closely mirrored to the ones that we all had and that, for example, my children are having.

Kinship care has a vital role in society. So often, that support is something that holds families together, and we have long called for the Government to support it financially. While they are there to support foster carers, we feel that kinship carers should also be better financially supported. Although we support the Government’s intentions, we must remind them that kinship carers still lack financial support. We tried to fix that during the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act, but on that occasion we did not succeed.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. The Government mention a new financial allowance pilot for kinship carers. Will the Minister explain why the Government did not support the kinship care amendment to the Bill in the last Session? Similarly, the Government state that their goal is to shift children’s social care towards stronger families and stable homes, and that is welcome. But when a relative or close family friend willing to take on a child is located, they often face immense financial barriers. When will the Government guarantee financial support for kinship carers on a par with that for foster carers?

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

I thank the noble Lords opposite for their welcome of the Government’s proposals around enduring relationships. The noble Baroness, Lady Cash, is right that the independent review of children’s social care was commissioned by the last Government and led by my honourable friend Josh MacAlister, the Minister for Children and Families. In that, he called for a relentless focus on enabling care-experienced children to build lifelong relationships, creating a tribe around them as they grow up. That is the basis of the enduring relationships strategy that we have published. It is framed around our central ambition to allow every child in care to maintain the loving, supportive and trusting relationships that they need to thrive. It builds on our recent work to legislate for social care reform, to reset how the system operates and to give our partners clarity on delivery.

In November 2024, the Government published Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive, which laid the foundations for reform. We followed through with the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, which many of us spent many happy long hours discussing as it wended its way through this House—I am sure we will have a suitably chunky Bill for the noble Baroness to enjoy in this Session. This has enabled the most significant overhaul of children’s social care in a generation, and these changes are supported by over £3 billion in funding across programmes, capital investment and implementation. Most recently, on 21 May, we published our implementation plan to support local partners to deliver these reforms. This work has laid the foundations.

Now, as noble Lords have recognised, we must move to the full implementation phase to bring about a real and tangible difference to children’s outcomes. A key focus of our reforms, as identified by Josh MacAlister in his review, is to help care-experienced children build long-lasting and loving relationships. Every young person needs relationships like these to form a strong sense of identity and to reach adulthood with confidence. The evidence is clear, as the noble Baroness identified, that just one stable, trusted and loving relationship can transform a child’s life. It can improve their resilience, health, education and long-term outcomes. Yet too often, the system does the opposite of facilitating the permanency that allows these relationships to grow.

In our strategy, we are setting out a new focus for children’s social care. We know that many social workers, carers and professionals work extremely hard to support young people to build and sustain trusted relationships, but often this depends on individual commitment rather than reliable structures. Therefore, to deliver this, our reforms will be aligned to four key outcomes. First, children’s social work must prioritise relationships, not just as an add-on but as the core purpose of practice—the lens through which every professional judgment is made. This is at the heart of the families first partnership programme, where mandatory family group decision-making will bring children’s families and wider networks into their care decisions at an earlier stage.

The noble Baroness, Lady Cash, and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, quite rightly raised the issue of kinship care. We are strengthening kinship care. Every local authority will be required to publish a local kinship offer, giving families the clarity and support they need. We have committed £126 million to pilot seven kinship zones, including family network support packages, which will tackle the barriers that can prevent families stepping in to support their kin. That work and investment will give us the basis on which to develop, as noble Lords have said, this important provision for young people. We have also strengthened local authorities’ duties to promote sibling contact for children in care, and the noble Lord is right about that. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, made a strong case for this during the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. At every point in proceedings, we must ask not only whether a child is safe but who matters to this child and how we can enable and nourish those relationships.

Secondly, we must create stable homes for children in care that support long-term relationships. That is why we are investing £88 million and working in partnership with fostering hubs and the sector to reform fostering and recruit 10,000 new foster carers. That will, in response to the noble Baroness’s question, involve reviewing standards, ensuring national consistency so that the rules in place support a child’s safety rather than limit the ability of foster carers to come into the system. Far fewer children should be in residential care and only when it is the best place to meet their current needs. Creating a route back to family life should be the focus of children’s care. Too often, the right residential care is not available, leading to child placement according to what is available rather than what is needed. That is why, to improve the planning and commissioning of residential care places, we are rolling out regional care co-operatives. We will have more to say about where those co-operatives will be and what support will be available for them in the near future.

Thirdly, we must support children’s transition to adulthood through supporting their long-term relationships. We are strengthening support for care-experienced young people so that they can move to independent living, supported by strong, trusted relationships. Through Staying Put and Staying Close, we are ensuring continuity of care and connection. Through strengthened corporate parenting, we are ensuring that public services step forward to support young people who have left care. Many children currently in care have already lost their most important relationships. That is why we are launching a national sprint to roll out family finding services in every local authority.

Finally, as noble Lords have said, we must embed the primacy of children’s long-term relationships through accountability and inspection. Care must be judged not on placement numbers or types but on children’s experience of them. We will have more to say soon about the measures that we will use for recognising success here. We are already working with local authorities and with Foundations, the What Works Centre for children’s social care, to determine how we will measure success here. We will announce more about that soon. Long-term relationships must be the standard by which the system judges success, so we will introduce an enduring relationships measure to gauge improvement and provide accountability. That also means that we will work with Ofsted to build enduring relationships into inspection criteria.

I welcome the support of noble Lords for these measures today. I look forward to working with noble Lords across the House as we make this fundamental difference to ensuring that all care-experienced children have not just the care and the safety that they need but the ability to keep, or rebuild, the enduring relationships that will be so important for their success in future life.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, most children who appear before the criminal courts display evidence of serious educational needs and an alarming number of those children show signs of florid psychiatric illness. In the sunshine of very welcome reform, can the Minister assure us that we will not lose sight of the great clouds presented by those issues?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord knows from his experience about the range of traumas that young people, even those who have not been in care, may well be reflecting. As he says, severe mental health needs may be one of them. That is why we are introducing mental health support into schools at an earlier stage. It is why, through the Department of Health, there is investment in 8,000 new mental health professionals and the development of a mental health strategy to ensure that children and young people in particular are getting support with mental health challenges at an earlier and more effective stage.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement from the Government. It is uplifting to see the shift from being just the corporate parent to it being our responsibility—all our responsibilities—to ensure that for those children who enter the care system, for reasons we may not like and they may not like, we understand that the important thing for them is enduring relationships. I want to ask my noble friend about one aspect of the Statement in particular: long-lasting relationships. I have done work with Family Rights Group for many years now. It did the initial work on this, which has been followed up by Foundations, the What Works Centre, asking how you establish for young people in the last couple of years before they leave care a lifelong relationship.

All your children will have aunts, uncles, cousins and friends they can go to, even when they have fallen out with their mum and dad. These children have no one. I know from talking with them that, when they re-establish a relationship with a long-distance schoolteacher they had a good relationship with, or with somebody from their nursery or another area of their life, or they find a long-distance relative they did not know about, it makes an enormous difference. I know we are going to make sure that Ofsted is covering these things. Can my noble friend assure me that the slimmed-down Ofsted will have the resources to make sure these changes have the real effect that they are meant to?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

On the last point that my noble friend made, it is precisely because of the importance of accountability that we will work with Ofsted to ensure that the measurement of enduring relationships and the development of enduring relationships are at the heart of the inspection process.

My noble friend also makes a very important point that, particularly for those young people who are in care but have already lost their most important relationships, it is not enough to simply say that is there nothing we can do to help them rebuild those. That is the reason for the announcement in the Statement about what is described as the

“national sprint to roll out family finding services”.

Those services do exactly what my noble friend has said: they sit down with young people, talk to them about who is now or was an important link and support in their lives, and then help them to remake those links to those people, who will support them while they are young but, as my noble friend says, will also be the people alongside them as they go into adulthood.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, from these Benches, I also warmly welcome what is in the strategy. Enabling children in care to sustain or make long-lasting relationships is absolutely crucial. When it comes to the lifelong relationship ceremonies, we on these Benches are certainly very interested in looking at what can be done to effect that. My question has come out of the work I did on my Private Member’s Bill for care leavers in the last Session. So many care leavers need to move from one local authority area to another, perhaps to maintain those relationships or to rebuild a relationship with a sibling, yet what traditionally happens is that the authority they have left washes its hands of them and the authority they land in considers it has no responsibility because they were never in care in that authority. What will the Government do to ensure that, where young people move from one authority area to another after they have just left care, they do not fall through the net any longer?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate makes a very important point. It is, of course, the objective of the Staying Close programme to enable young people, once they have left care, particularly if they were in residential care, to be able to continue to receive support. I will certainly go back and talk to my honourable friend the Minister for Children and Families about this point. I think that that is partly covered in the requirement for all authorities to have a support package for those who have left care, but the point about how we maintain the relationships that are at the heart of this strategy is a really important one that I will take up with him.

[Lord Bates (Con)]

My Lords, in welcoming the Statement, I also welcome my noble friend Lady Cash to the Front Bench. She brings great knowledge and understanding and, most importantly in this role, compassion, and we look forward to her further contributions. It is a tragedy in modern Britain that care leavers can emerge from care with no one they feel is there for them and no one they feel they can trust. For many of us, the source of those enduring relationships outside the family would be found in faith communities and sports clubs. Specifically, uniformed youth groups such as the Scouts, Guides and cadets built great relationships and instilled young people with essential self-discipline, self-worth and mutual respect. Does she agree that these are precisely the qualities that could benefit not only care leavers but all young people? If so, will she undertake to engage specifically with the uniformed youth groups to see how they can support this welcome initiative?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a really important point—notwithstanding the fact that my relationship with the Guides lasted about three weeks so could hardly be described as enduring. However, for many people, faith groups and youth groups of the sort that he has identified could well be the types of environments that could provide that support, that external help and some of those long-lasting links. I will certainly take that point back to my honourable friend as well.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, it is quite clear that the Government are taking an important step forward here to support those from the care system and that everybody has recognised the lack of parental support going on into the early years of adulthood, which is incredibly important. Could the Government go a little further in how they are trying to bring these bits together? We have heard about the voluntary sector, schools and possibly even kinship care, but what will be the point at which we identify the hub that will connect these bits?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

First of all, there is the structure being put in place through the implementation plans that the Government are producing, through the national framework, which has been relatively recently reviewed, and through the structures being proposed as part of the strategy. The best way to think about this is that what brings all these things together is the child or young person. If we change practice so that, at every point in thinking about decisions that are being made about children who have come into the care system, we ask ourselves, “What is the best way to enable relationships for this young person to be enduring or developed?”, that is the way in which we bring together the range of policy and investment that the Government are putting into this.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I am sure that we will not hear any objection from your Lordships’ House to the strategy’s aim of putting enduring relationships at the heart of the children’s care system, but there is no mention in the Statement or strategy of the substantial barriers to that. They do not talk about the impact of for-profit companies, particularly those owned by hedge funds and other financial companies, on the provision of extremely expensive, often poor-quality care provided by lowly paid, frequently changing staff. We discussed this in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and heard very little defence from any corner about this kind of provision. What are the Government’s plans to end this exploitation of some of our most vulnerable children? Have the Government set targets to reduce the provision of care by these deeply disturbing companies?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The reason why we discussed that in the proceedings on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill was precisely because we were taking action in that legislation to tackle this problem. We are empowering local authorities to secure the best placements for looked-after children at a price that is fair to the taxpayer. We know that local authorities cannot do this alone, so we are also taking action at national level to reshape the market through our package of measures, including those set out in the Act. We are rebalancing the market and improving competition, regulation and the commissioning of placements through the regional care co-operatives I have already talked about, and we will shine a light on the level of profit being made and bring greater visibility to the prices that local authorities are paying. In that legislation, we also took provision to introduce a profit cap if necessary.

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

My Lords, like all the other speakers, I very much welcome what the Government have done in this area and the emphasis they have placed on the importance of enduring relationships. I am very pleased to see that they have in many ways taken up the cause that my noble friend Lady Armstrong has championed for many years. How will the Government integrate these enduring relationships, whether with grandparents, aunts and uncles, former teachers or sports coaches, into the care process right from the outset, so that it is not an add-on but something that is fundamentally integral to the process?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

That is a very important point. One of the important things we legislated for in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act is the requirement for the use of family group decision-making in precisely that way, when thinking about children coming into the care system, by engaging their families and those who might have the capacity to support them at that point. That is a really important statement at the very beginning of the process about the need to think about kinship care and the support that families can provide.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I had the pleasure of working with the Minister in Committee on the Bill on the regional care co-operatives, and I am very grateful to her for agreeing to many of the things the Opposition were keen to have in the Bill. The successful expansion of the RCCs will depend to a large extent on good will and co-operation with local authorities in its implementation. Can she say something about how this will be achieved in the context of local government reform, which will mean many existing local authorities will be turned into unitaries and there will be a lot of changes across a number of counties and other areas?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that this is a period of local government reorganisation. It is also a time when local government finances are under considerable pressure, not least from having to find placements in an unplanned way, which is likely to lead to unexpected and very high costs. The very fact that local authorities can group together to use the planning and spending power of a regional care co-operative is beneficial to them at a point at which local government reorganisation is going on. Even more importantly, it is beneficial for the children who are more likely to have a placement that works for them, rather than simply one scrambled together on a Friday afternoon.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister give us some indication of what is being done to address the culture to make sure that these enduring relationships last? Is anything being done differently in the way the professionals involved are being trained? Is anything being done about the information given to the families in the first place? I was a youth worker for more than 35 years, and the most powerful relationships were where the family knew their rights and were pursuing them and could meet the professionals halfway. Are the Government doing any work to change the way in which the professionals now do their duties because of the new priorities of the Government?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point. To come back to the point I made earlier, we have changed things in the law such as the requirement for family group decision-making at an earlier stage. In this strategy we spell out clearly the need to change practice to focus on relationships at all stages of a child’s experience of coming into and being in care. I agree with the noble Lord that there needs to be a change in culture, and we are providing support for kinship care pilots and other initiatives such as the recruitment of 10,000 more foster carers. The central message here, as I suggested earlier, is that at every stage in a child’s journey social workers will be asking themselves: what do we need to do at this point to enable this young person to maintain or re-find the enduring relationships that will set them up for and support them for the rest of their lives?

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, since there is time, my question relates to the ongoing monitoring of progress underneath this strategy, particularly whether the Government will be setting up a regular programme of listening to children in the care system and those emerging from it to see how fast progress is being made, what is being done better and what could still be strengthened. Will they be really listening to the children regularly as this strategy goes forward?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point, and we talked about this at various points during the passage of the Bill. I assure her that in all the action that we take, particularly in children’s social care, we will want to centre children’s voices in the action being taken at a local level and listen to them in the development of policy.

Young People and Work

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name in the Order Paper. I understand that there is a debate going on about where I should be sitting. If I have got it wrong, I am really sorry.

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

My Lords, this Government’s priority is to ensure that young people have the best opportunities to get on in life. That is why we commissioned Alan Milburn to identify the underlying drivers of the NEET participation crisis. His interim report shows that this is a systemic challenge across departments and society. We are already taking action across education, health, youth services and welfare, and we will build further on this as we consider full recommendations from Alan Milburn in the autumn.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her Answer, which is encouraging. We on these Benches welcome the Milburn report. It is a serious, research-driven diagnosis of a problem that has accelerated since the pandemic. The NEET problem is complex and cuts across almost every government department—and it is more than welfare policy, as the Minister has already said. It is about interaction with education, skills, health and the labour market, economic growth and young people’s ability to transition from school to the labour market.

We all agree that economic growth matters and business confidence matters, and, most importantly, we need employers who are willing and able to afford to hire young people in the current climate. The latter is something we can address right now. Why will the Government not revoke the damaging policies—such as the increases in national insurance, increasing employment burdens and rising labour costs—that are preventing employers employing young people? That will reinvigorate the number of entry-level jobs, get young people into work and keep them there.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I was with the noble Baroness for the first part of her question. She is right: the Milburn report does identify a wide-ranging problem and a need for systemic and country-wide action. I am afraid that she may not have read it as carefully as she should have in relation to the last part of her question. Alan Milburn is very clear in paragraph 266 that

“it is worth remembering that those under 21 remain exempt from employer NICs and, as the review has already highlighted, the increase in youth inactivity long precedes any recent changes”

to NEETs. Employers do not pay national insurance contributions for under-21s, or for apprentices under 25. If national insurance contributions were really responsible for the rise in NEETs, why did the number increase by 250,000 before the general election and before any changes to employer national insurance were made?

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that excellent response. As she knows, I have been obsessed with this issue for many years, and I strongly welcome the fact that the Secretary of State asked Alan Milburn to undertake this review. Does she agree that this gives the opportunity, through the final report, to offer a comprehensive and coherent approach, including drawing together the measures the Government have already put in place? Does she also agree that the way this report was presented and communicated to the public was an exemplar that all of us in politics might learn from?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I do agree with my noble friend. The report rightly identified the systemic issues that have led to one million young people not being able to earn or learn. It is therefore this Government’s responsibility to take action—as we have already started to do—through the education system, through our youth services and through our welfare and health systems to address the wide range of issues that are leading to young people’s failure to start their working and learning lives in a way that will lead to the sorts of futures we all want them to have.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, as we have said, the Milburn review found that one million young people are now classed as NEET—the highest level for 12 years. The report warns that without further action, one in six young people could be in this position within five years. Hospitality vacancies alone have halved in four years. The Government’s own youth jobs grant will reach a miserable 60,000 young people over three years. This is a sticking plaster on a wound the Government helped create. Does the Minister agree that the jobs tax is hammering the very entry-level opportunities on which young people rely? Mention has been made of national insurance contributions. Could the Minister at least confirm that the Government will be consulting on a lower employer NIC band for workers earning between £5,000 and £9,100? The Minister’s comment about workers under 21 does not cover that wide gamut of people. I would like to feel that there is consultation as to how this is affecting the employment of young people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I have already reminded noble Lords, given that we are talking about the Milburn report, what Alan Milburn actually said about the position with respect to national insurance contributions. I am disappointed that the noble Lord believes that this Government’s youth guarantee of £2.5 billion of investment—including a £3,000 youth jobs grant for every young person aged 18 to 24 who is hired across Great Britain and who has been looking for work for six months or more, available from next month—is somehow meaningless. It is really important, which is why I spend my time talking to employers about how this Government, alongside employers, can make the best use of the additional investment we are putting into ensuring that this is not a lost generation.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bird (CB)]

Is it possible for the Minister to explain to me this kind of scattergun effect? She says that it covers all departments—education and everything else—but why is there not a central office in government for the eradication of poverty? Only by bringing everyone’s energies together will we bring about change.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord and I have discussed his suggestion, both in this Chamber and in my office. I would not agree with his characterisation that is a scattergun approach. What we have is a cross-government recognition of the challenge of ensuring that young people can get into work or can learn in pathways that will lead them to satisfactory work. That requires action in schools to identify young people who will potentially become NEET. It requires action, which we are taking, in the welfare system. It requires action in the Department of Health to support young people’s mental health needs. It requires the youth strategy that this Government have already produced. That is not scattergun; it is consistent cross-government action to tackle this problem.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

Alan Milburn’s report highlighted the harms of social media for young people. Just a few weeks ago, the front page of the Mirror newspaper ran with the headline, “Kids’ social media ban within weeks”, citing Liz Kendall. Can the Minister please give us an update? Noble Lords were clear during the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill on the importance of this.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Of course, during the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we took legislative powers to be able to implement the results of the consultation that is currently under way. I am glad that the noble Earl peruses the Daily Mirror, but I am afraid he will have to wait a bit longer, with the certainty that this Government will take action, for the results of that consultation.

[The Lord Bishop of Hereford]

My Lords, I want to ask the Minister about the issue of AI in this context. I speak with some personal experience, in that my son’s partner has recently been made redundant as the result of an AI system that she herself developed. It is inevitable that AI systems will grow, unchecked and unregulated, and will continue to reduce entry-level jobs across a range of sectors. What projections have the Government made of this, and what action do they plan to take to ensure that a healthy entry-level job market will remain for young people?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate is right. As Alan Milburn identifies, structural change in the labour market, particularly with respect to entry-level jobs, is an important issue. There are both opportunities and threats that come from the development of AI. Just this morning, I was talking to higher education vice-chancellors about the work they are doing to prepare their graduates to operate in a world where being able to use AI—notwithstanding the right reverend Prelate’s example—will make it more likely that they are equipped for a rapidly changing labour market resulting from AI and other things. We are working across government to identify the impact of AI on the future workforce. What is more, through our education system we are working to equip young people to be able to respond to those challenges, wherever they come from.

For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strasburger]

To ask His Majesty’s Government which government departments have not yet fully implemented the Supreme Court judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers.

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

My Lords, the Supreme Court ruling that the noble Lord’s Question refers to brings clarity for women and service providers. We expect all duty bearers to follow the law and to seek legal advice where necessary, and that includes government departments. Departments have been reviewing and updating their policies and guidance following the Supreme Court ruling. This includes the new internal Civil Service guidance that has been shared with departments. We will ensure that any policies and guidance are consistent with the draft code of practice for services, public functions and associations that was laid in Parliament before the Recess.

[Lord Strasburger (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her reply. Over the last year, Government Ministers have repeatedly told this House that all service providers must get on with implementing last year’s Supreme Court ruling, but it seems that the NHS did not get the memo. The cases of Sandie Peggie and the Darlington nurses show that the NHS still expects female nurses to undress in front of males. Will the new Health Secretary be any better than the previous one at getting the NHS to obey the law?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Of course it is the case that the NHS should be obeying the law, in terms of both the provision of goods and services, which this code covers, and employment practices, on which further guidance will come from the EHRC. On the provision of the services that the NHS is responsible for, it is of course thinking carefully about both the ruling and the guidance, and it will be coming forward with more guidance in the near future.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I remember Meta Ramsay as an outstanding public servant who was as kind as she was courageous.

After numerous Lords Questions and a year-long review, we are left with the controversial code essentially unchanged. I ask, in sympathy with those who feel adversely affected and those who must implement it, how is a local GP surgery or a village hall to navigate proportionality, when three recent court decisions seem to point in different directions? Is this practically possible, or is it time to legislate?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I believe it is practically possible. One of the reasons for taking the time, both in government and in the EHRC, is to make sure that the code that has now been published provides practical and sensible examples about how the law can be implemented. If providers take the time to look at the code, they will see exactly that type of supportive and common-sense advice about how to implement what is and has been the law and was simply clarified by the Supreme Court ruling.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, now that the Minister has agreed that government departments need to conform to the Supreme Court ruling, will she be able to tell the House what amount of public funds has been expended since the Forstater judgment of 2021 on religion and belief by government departments in litigation and settlements that deal with civil servants bringing cases against government departments? If she does not have that figure to hand, could she write to me telling me what it is?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, I am happy to do that.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I draw the Minister back to the noble Lord’s original Question, which was about which government departments are not complying with the Supreme Court’s judgment. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Collins, twice in this House to confirm that all government departments were fully complying with the Supreme Court judgment, and he confirmed twice that, absolutely, they all were doing so. Is the Minister able to confirm that and provide the evidence that supports that statement?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Of course it is the case that government departments need to comply with the law, and they are working to ensure that they are complying with the law.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend has been clear, and I have been clear. The noble Lord might want to suggest that we have not been, but I am afraid I think that we have.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what the Government propose to do to restore the legitimate expectation of those who obtain gender recognition certificates? Section 9 of the 2004 Act says that a person’s gender

“becomes for all purposes the acquired gender”

in law, an expectation which has been smashed by the proposed guidance.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that the particular issue he identifies was the subject of the ruling in the For Women Scotland judgment. That was an interpretation of the law as it had always stood; it is clear, and the code is now enabling providers to deliver on the basis of that. But it is also the case, of course, and in that ruling it was made clear, that the safeguards for people in the Equality Act on the basis of gender reassignment remain, and discrimination and harassment against people on that basis remain unlawful. The code makes that clear, in fact, and is helpful in delivering it.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, given that the Government’s own impact assessment on the guidance notes the real-world problems that will still impact some women and trans individuals, by what measures will the Government be evaluating the impact of these challenges and whether the guidance actually meets its aims and ambitions?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Given the number of questions and the debate there is about this issue, I do not think there is anybody who does not think that some difficult and contested issues have had to be dealt with along the way. But the publication of the code, and the work of the EHRC to deliver it, provide, as the commission has said it attempted to, some more exemplification about how providers can abide by the law. Most importantly, it can ensure that everybody’s rights under the Equality Act, including their dignity and their ability to access services, are upheld.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, alongside other faith leaders, I am increasingly coming across trans people—men and women, often young and quite fragile—who are increasingly frightened. They are frightened about participating in public life and about being challenged. Some are even frightened about going to the doctor. What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the mental health of trans people, and how will they support them with these changes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

First, we have consistently recognised that there has been concern among the trans community about the way in which the ruling and the code will be implemented. I hope that recognising, as the ruling does, that the rights of trans people remain unaffected under the Equality Act through that ruling, along with the code itself spelling out the ways in which trans people need to maintain their access to services, and setting out some quite sensible examples of how that should happen, would provide some reassurance.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, this morning the Health Secretary told the “Today” programme that the Supreme Court ruling was clear and that single-sex spaces must be protected, but UNISON has called parts of the new guidance “completely unworkable” and Sir Ed Davey has said that it is “not fit for purpose”. Can the Minister reassure the House that whatever pressure Ministers may be under from unions, MPs or anybody else, they will stand firm on protecting single-sex spaces—yes or no?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

This Government have always protected the right of women to have single-sex spaces. They always have; some of us have quite a long history of doing it and we will continue to do that.

[Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)]

My Lords, the code, read alongside the building regulations, creates conditions in which anyone may feel entitled to challenge anyone in a single-sex facility whose appearance does not satisfy them. Can the Minister point to any evidence that trans people in public toilets represent a significant risk to others, and does she accept that the more likely consequence of this framework is the harassment of gender non-conforming women who are not trans at all?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I hope when my noble friend has a chance to look at the code in detail she will recognise that the code now makes it clear that determining somebody’s sex on the basis of their physical appearance would not necessarily be straightforward or appropriate. I think that is an important statement. On the point about challenging and enforcement, most of us in this country for many years have lived in a way that enables people to access public services, including toilets, without any policing. That is not the British way we do things—nor do I think it should be in future. There are common-sense ways in which the code identifies how we can ensure both that the ruling is complied with and that all people—particularly trans people who may be worried about it—can get access to the facilities they need and deserve.

Ballet

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord John of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare an interest as a member of the president’s circle of the Central School of Ballet.

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

My Lords, the Government recognise the important contribution of the performing arts, including classical ballet. We continue to support degree-level provision of these subjects through the student finance system and though direct funding for providers via the strategic priorities grant. That includes per-student funding for performing arts courses, the rates for which were maintained this academic year, and direct funding of £57.4 million for 20 world-leading specialist providers, including 12 creative and performing arts institutions.

[Lord John of Southwark (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her Answer. Whatever Timothée Chalamet may say, people care about ballet. The Central School of Ballet, almost uniquely as a degree-awarding classical ballet school, has faced financial uncertainty in recent years, with funding regimes changed and the gap between tuition fees of £9,250 and the costs of £24,000 per student causing real stress. The school awaits the delayed consultation on the strategic priorities grant this autumn, but is concerned that it may not know until well into 2027 what the new funding landscape will look like for 2027-28. Can my noble friend give any reassurance that there will be a prompt response to the consultation and that funding will more closely reflect the costs of specialist providers such as the Central School of Ballet? Can I invite her to visit the school to see the exceptional work of the students and staff there?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I know that my noble friend, as he has already identified, is a very strong supporter of the Central School of Ballet and the excellent work that it clearly does. The Government recognise the valuable contribution made by the Central School of Ballet, which is why it has benefited from £2.2 million in specialist funding from 2022 to the current academic year. I also recognise the point made by my noble friend about the need for certainty. We remain committed to ensuring that SPG funding supports students and aligns with the industrial strategy, including the creative and performing arts. Reform of the SPG is ongoing ahead of 2027-28, including on specialist funding, but we will ensure that there is an opportunity for providers to feed back on our proposals for reform.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland has offered a BA degree course in modern ballet since 2009. However, British students from outwith Scotland are financially disadvantaged as the RCS is not recognised as one of the dance centres for advanced training, CATs, probably because there was no such dance provision at this level in Scotland when the CATs scheme began. In contrast, such students at St Mary’s Music School in Edinburgh are funded by the UK Government. Will the Minister commit to reviewing the status of the RCS as a dance CAT provider so that talented dancers from England, Wales and Northern Ireland are on a par with Scottish students at this globally recognised institution in performing arts education?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I have to confess to not being an expert on the arrangements for the conservatoire, although it is the case that where a student is studying a degree in dance, they are eligible for student funding in the normal way that a student would be. If the noble Baroness sends me further details about whether she thinks that covers the point she is making, I will be happy to look at it.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord John, for raising the question of classical ballet. As the Minister knows, it is highly specialist, highly intensive and time critical so that a dancer can be internationally job ready at age 18. I take the opportunity to ask her about the music and dance scheme, which—as she knows and as we have heard so often—is a vital talent pipeline that ensures that young talent, whatever their background, can fulfil their potential. I am very grateful to the Minister and to Georgia Gould for repeatedly confirming the Government’s support for the scheme, but is she aware that the lack of clarity on long-term funding is now making it very difficult for schools to convince parents to sign up to a multiyear training programme, which is essential to success? Have there been any conversations on the ongoing questions of VAT, whether the exemption for MDS students will remain and, indeed, multiyear funding agreements for these vital institutions?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It is very good to be facing questions today from at least two excellent dancers—that is no slight on my noble friend. The noble Baroness raises, as have other noble Lords, the question of certainty around the music and dance scheme, which, as she says, the Government have consistently committed to as we commit to revitalising and widening access to arts education. We continue to fund that scheme, providing bursaries to more than 2,000 students. This means that means-tested, targeted support for students from lower-income families can continue. Funding for the academic year 2026-27 onward will be announced in due course. Although it has not been the case for some time that there have been multiyear settlements, I understand the noble Baroness’s point about certainty for students who are starting on courses and their families.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I confess that I had to do compulsory ballet when I was a little, round, fat six year-old, so I am not in the elite. As well as the Central School of Ballet, a great number of small, specialist performing arts providers, highly regarded internationally, send their overseas students there. But, of course, providing these courses and keeping a pipeline of high-level tutors is more expensive than for many other subjects, so can the Minister assure us that this will be taken into account when the funding is being considered?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes. That is the reason why, as part of the strategic priorities grant, 12 of the 20 small, specialist providers are the type of high-quality performing arts providers that the noble Baroness was talking about. Those 20 providers are being supported in this financial year by £57.4 million precisely because of the point that she has made: they are small, highly specialised and internationally recognised. They therefore have costs that need to be particularly recognised, which is what has happened through the strategic priorities grant.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, I am here to reset the balance on exceptional ballet talent. I did one term of ballet, aged four, at the end of which I got a report that said, “Diana has no natural talent”. That report, unlike many others, has stayed with me to this day. I want to press the Minister, if I may. She has spoken about the department’s long-term commitment to the music and dance scheme, but can she say a little more about the adequacy of funding levels for the scheme, to ensure access for children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It is definitely not right that the noble Baroness has no talents. Anybody who saw me on “Strictly” will know the extent of my dance talents. Anyway, I reiterate that the Government have given support to the music and dance scheme. It will provide generous support to help students access specialist music and dance education and training, with £36 million committed for this year. As the noble Baronesses have said, the aim of the scheme is to identify and assist children with exceptional potential, regardless of their personal and financial circumstances, to benefit from world-class specialist training. That is very much in line with the Government’s ambition to support dance and the performing arts, both in education and more widely, and we will endeavour to give certainty about next year’s funding for that as soon as possible.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I cannot really compete with what has been said about dance specialisation because I ceased my dance classes at three. I want to expand a little on the music and dance scheme in schools, and I have raised this with my noble friend the Minister before. She knows that they are calling for the restoration of three-year settlements and an increase in funding, which has been frozen or increased by under inflation since 2011. It is so difficult for the schools when the budgets are not finalised, or are finalised so late, because schools are having to take a gamble on what their funding will be, and they can lose prospective students who will not gamble on taking up a place with that uncertainty. Can my noble friend give us another assurance about the future of this scheme and the level of its funding?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend gives me the opportunity to say, yet again, that through both the music and dance scheme and the dance and drama awards for students studying specific level 5 performing arts qualifications, the Government have maintained their support for those students to ensure that access is widened. I hear the point that my noble friend and others have made about certainty of funding. It is not an excuse, but there has not been multiyear funding for the music and dance scheme since 2020. I quite understand why schools want that longer-term funding certainty. We will continue to do what we can to provide timely—and, if possible in the future, multiyear—funding arrangements, but at the moment that has not been possible.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 38V to 38X to Commons Amendment 38J, to which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 38Z12 to 38Z21.

38Z12: As an Amendment to Commons Amendment 38J, in subsection (2), in inserted subsection (1)(a), leave out “features or functionalities” and insert “functionalities or other features”

--- Later in debate ---

38Z21: As an Amendment to Commons Amendment 38K, after subsection (2) insert—
“(3) If the first regulations have not been laid before Parliament before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (1A)—
(a) the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement explaining why, and
(b) before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which the statement under paragraph (a) is laid, the Secretary of State must lay the first regulations before Parliament.
(4) References in this section to the laying before Parliament of the first regulations are to the laying before Parliament of a draft of a statutory instrument containing the first regulations.”

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

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motion A1. On this group, we will debate amendments made in this House and in the other place relating to restrictions on social media use for children. Once again, before getting into the detail of these Motions and amendments, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Lloyd of Effra and myself I thank all noble Lords who have engaged so constructively, not just throughout the Bill’s passage but on these issues in particular. I am pleased to say that, thanks to the collaborative engagement of noble Lords across the House, I believe we have now reached a landing point that reflects our shared aims and that should command support on all sides.

I begin by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Nash. His commitment to the cause of children’s safety and well-being is profound. He has spoken passionately in the interests of children, parents and carers across this country, and I am grateful for his willingness to engage constructively with the Government on this critical issue. I also acknowledge the many noble Lords across the House who have shared their expertise and passion throughout this debate. The sincerity with which noble Lords have advanced their argument has been evident throughout and it has materially shaped the Government’s approach as we look beyond the consultation.

Good legislation is very often the product of exactly this kind of dialogue. The Government’s power now reflects the commitments we have made repeatedly in this House: it is a question of how we act, not if we act. Following the consultation, the Secretary of State now must, rather than may, use this power. To reiterate what my honourable friend Minister Bailey said in the other place yesterday,

“the status quo cannot continue. We are consulting on the mechanism, which is the right thing to do, but we are clear that under any outcome we will impose some form of age or functionality”

restrictions

“for children under 16. I can also confirm that consideration of restrictions such as curfews will be in addition to that, not instead of it. As the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has said, we are focused on addictive features, harmful algorithmically-driven content and features such as stranger pairing, which we know can be most damaging to children’s safety and privacy”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/4/26; col. 699.]

Recognising our shared determination for the quickest possible action, the Government have further tightened the timeframe for its delivery: a three-month progress report, followed by a 12-month timeline for making regulations, with the possibility of a single six-month extension, to be used only in exceptional circumstances. In recognition of the concerns about harmful and addictive design, we have further specified that the Secretary of State must have due regard to such features when making future regulations.

This is a serious and responsible approach. It preserves the integrity of the consultation, which has now received more than 55,000 responses from parents, children and those with direct experience of these harms. It also responds, rightly, to the concern that has animated much of the debate in this House: that children cannot wait, and that government must be held to a clear and demanding timetable.

I hope the House will recognise this for what it is: a collective effort from Parliament and government on one of the most important issues facing children today. The House has pressed, rightly, for urgency. The Government have maintained, rightly, that we must do this in a way that allows decisions to be informed by the consultation.

Motion A1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would amend the Government’s regulation-making power by requiring the Secretary of State to have further due regard to Ofcom’s codes of practice and the Information Commissioner’s children’s code, as well as specific risk factors such as “contact from strangers” and “loss of privacy”. It would also require due regard where representations from the general public are received in relation to a child facing

“imminent danger arising from their contact with an internet service”.

The Motion also proposes that the review of Ofcom’s enforcement powers is brought forward and tightens the timelines further, specifically that regulations must be made only six months after the three-month progress report, as well as shortening the potential extension period from six months to three months.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his continued commitment to child safety and rights. The Government share his determination to ensure the robust and urgent protection of children online. The noble Lord highlights many areas on which the Government have sought views through their consultation. While we recognise that these factors are important, prescribing an extensive list of specific “due regard” requirements, as the Motion does, is unnecessary and risks creating too much rigidity, reducing the flexibility the Secretary of State needs to respond to harms.

The consultation also makes it clear that the Online Safety Act will remain the foundation of our work on online safety; it forms a strong baseline from which this Government can build. I can reassure the noble Lord that the Online Safety Act’s statutory review will consider the effectiveness Ofcom’s enforcement powers, which are currently being manifested through 100 enforcement investigations that are currently under way. Introducing a review before all the duties have come into effect would risk being incomplete and ineffective.

On the timeline for action that we have discussed in this House over recent days, this Government have already gone a long way in ensuring that regulations are brought forward as quickly as possible, following the consultation. As I have said throughout, we will act as quickly as possible, and the DSIT Secretary of State has set out an ambition to make real progress on the regulations by the end of the year. Given all of this, I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, not to press his Motion.

This Government have made clear our intention to Act, and I know that many across both Houses will follow the outcomes of the consultation with great interest. It is in all of our interests to agree the Government’s Motion today, so we can start the important work of preparing to act on the consultation and keep children safe online.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I start where the Minister started, by acknowledging the work of my noble friend Lord Nash, who has led an incredibly effective campaign, which has been driven not by any political motives but by three things: first, wanting to do right by all children; secondly, having listened to the pain and the passion, as many of us have, of those parents who have lost their children, those who are worrying about their children and those whose children have been deeply harmed by social media; thirdly, by the weight of evidence from not just those parents but health professionals, police and law enforcement, and teachers.

Parents around the country are celebrating the Government’s decision to commit to act with the focus, as my noble friend said, on harmful and addictive features and algorithms and the ability to meet strangers online. It is my noble friend, his team and his co-signatories who are behind that change, and we are all really grateful to them for that.

But, as we have heard this afternoon, the work to get this right is only just beginning. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, wants to get things a bit more right this afternoon with his Motion A1, but these issues were debated yesterday, and now is not the time to revisit them. But the Government will benefit—whether they want to or not—from the expertise in this House, as we have heard; from my noble friend’s drive and focus; and from the experience and insight of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron; from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones; and, sadly for not much longer, from the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, who will be much missed on these issues.

I also acknowledge the courage of those Labour Peers who have supported my noble friend’s campaign, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, but also the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, who have all spoken out. We all know in this House how difficult that is to do. When we think about the impact that this change, if well implemented, will have on our children in future, we are all reminded of the extraordinary privilege that we hold to sit here and be part of shaping that change.

This has been a long Bill. I think there were around 700 amendments in Committee stage and many more thereafter. I could not have played my part in that without the wonderful campaigners, including, of course, the bereaved parents—especially Ellen Roome, who has been extraordinarily generous with her time—the experts and all the charities who have supported me on everything, including children deprived of their liberty, children who are not in school, free school policies, and, of course, social media and smartphones. I cannot thank them all enough. They brought to life the reality of the policy choices that the Government are making.

I would like to pause a moment and remind the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that, when he talks about the Conservatives bailing out at the last minute, it was the Liberal Democrats who bailed out all of 24 hours ago at the very last minute on a situation that would have clarified today the position of smartphones in schools and those schools that have “not seen, not heard” policies. Ironically, we are going to have to wait roughly 21 months as a result of their decision to move from supporting and signing an amendment to, as the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, said yesterday, preparing to vote against us on it. I ask the noble Lord perhaps to reflect on that.

But the Government have made a commitment that children should have no access to smartphones. When I met the Minister in the other place yesterday, she reassured me that the head teacher who spoke on the radio just after our debate last week and said that putting this guidance on a statutory footing would make no difference in her school, because they had had a ban since 2023 and children had phones switched off in their pockets and in their bags, would think again and would understand that was no longer appropriate. Given the evidence from many people at the Education Select Committee this morning, I press the Minister to confirm that she agrees with her colleague in the other place that that school will no longer think that policy is acceptable. The Government have committed to addressing this no later than September 2027, for which I am genuinely grateful, but my guess is we will need to address it sooner than that.

In closing, I am grateful for the steadfast support of the co-signatories to my very many amendments across the Bill, including my noble friends Lady O’Neill, Lady Spielman, Lord Agnew and, of course, Lord Nash. I would particularly like to call out the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who has been the most stalwart of stalwarts and has supported our proceedings with his own charm, expertise and insight from start to finish, which is quite a marathon. I have had fantastic and skilled and long-suffering support from the Public Bill Office and from an amazing team of special advisers and researchers in Annabelle Eyre, Henry Mitson, Dan Cohen and, for part of the Bill, Beatrice Hughes.

I would like to wish the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, a well-earned rest at the end of the Bill. I have some sense of how many hours and how many plates they have been spinning respectively. For my part, I am going to be stepping down from the Front Bench now that the Bill is completing its passage—anyone would think I was sad to go—but I genuinely look forward to working across the House on the special educational needs and disabilities legislation when it comes and more. Our role is making sure that legislation works in practice; I have tried to do this in this Bill, and I will try to do it in the future.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate today and during the whole of the Bill’s passage. First, on the specifics, as I set out earlier, the Government hope that today we are able to reach an agreement on the Government’s Motion; it represents an effective compromise that recognises the shared desire across the Government and both Houses that we must act quickly to protect our children’s online well-being.

On that point, and perhaps taking up the challenge of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, as my honourable friend said yesterday in the Commons, and in fact as we have said throughout discussions on these issues, we have been clear that the status quo cannot continue. The Government were clear when they launched their consultation that this was not about whether we take action, but rather what we do. We are consulting on the mechanism and that is the right thing to do. But we are clear—and this is the result of some of the very important engagement that has gone on—that, under any outcome, we will impose some form of age or functionality restrictions for children under 16. As I said earlier, I can confirm that consideration of restrictions such as curfews will be in addition to these restrictions not instead of them. This is a reasonable approach for this House, and in fact for both Houses, to take—to recognise the importance of the consultation and to recognise the strength of feeling as represented in these two Houses about the need to take action.

I also hear some of the other comments around the need for enforcement. I am sure that some of the debate will continue, and that is probably for other days and possibly even other bits of legislation.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 38V to 38X to Commons Amendment 38J, to which the Commons have disagreed, and do propose Amendments 38Z1 to 38Z9 to Commons Amendments 38J and 38K in lieu of Amendments 38V to 38X—

38Z1: As an Amendment to Commons Amendment 38J, in subsection (2), in inserted subsection (1)(a), leave out “features or functionalities” and insert “functionalities or other features”

--- Later in debate ---

38Z9: As an Amendment to Commons Amendment 38K, after subsection (2) insert—
“(3) If the first regulations have not been laid before Parliament before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (1A)—
(a) the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement explaining why, and
(b) before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which the statement under paragraph (a) is laid, the Secretary of State must lay the first regulations before Parliament.
(4) References in this section to the laying before Parliament of the first regulations are to the laying before Parliament of a draft of a statutory instrument containing the first regulations.”

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

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motions A1, A2, B, C and C1. With this group, we are debating amendments made in this House and the other place relating to a social media ban for under-16s, mobile phones in schools, and school admissions. Before getting into the details of the Motions and amendments before us, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Lloyd of Effra and myself, I thank all noble Lords who have engaged with us, ministerial colleagues and departmental officials throughout the Bill’s passage, and particularly during this rather fast-paced bit of ping-pong that we are now engaged in.

We are, hopefully, at the very end of this parliamentary Session and today brings us to the third round of ping-pong on this important Bill. That is beyond the point that the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord True, has generally seen as the juncture at which the unelected House should give way to the House of Commons. Noble Lords will be familiar with my history as a Member of and ministerial officeholder in the other place. That House has now spoken clearly on the matters before us on multiple occasions, endorsing the Government’s alternative proposals. I recognise, however, now that I am a Member of this place, that perhaps one advantage of noble Lords is their ability to scrutinise in detail and to push successfully for revision of government proposals. We have seen that throughout the course of consideration of this Bill. For example, for each of the issues that we are debating again this afternoon, the Government have recognised the strength of feeling expressed both here and in the other place, and we have responded on each one.

I will set out the important package of amendments that the Government have tabled to better protect children online. Once again, I am grateful for the constructive debate and committed engagement of noble Lords on this. In light of these discussions, we have strengthened our position, responding directly to your Lordships’ concerns about urgency, scope and parliamentary scrutiny. To put beyond any doubt that this Government will act in a way that responds to the concerns of your Lordships’ House, we have now gone further still. Under my Motion, we are placing a clear statutory requirement that the Secretary of State “must”, rather than “may”, act following the consultation. This removes any question of whether action will follow, while rightly allowing the detail of that action to be shaped by the evidence and by those most affected: the parents and children who have already responded to the consultation in their thousands.

The Government have now also committed to a timeline in the Bill. I am aware that there has been some commentary on this proposed timeline over the weekend, and I will therefore set out our position clearly to inform this debate. This Government are committed to moving as quickly as possible on this important issue. The timeline set out in our power is a ceiling, not a target. I recognise that there are particular concerns regarding the inclusion of an option for the Secretary of State to further extend the timeline. To be clear, this extension would be deployed only in exceptional unforeseen circumstances that prevent the Government meeting the original deadline. This is not a means of delaying regulation but a measure of last resort, to be used only if absolutely necessary. Noble Lords should therefore think of the implementation timescale as 24 months at the outside, rather than any longer, and remain mindful of my earlier remarks about this being a ceiling, not a target.

We have also listened carefully to concerns about harmful and potentially addictive design features. As noble Lords will know, the consultation seeks views on restrictions to addictive features and functionalities, and we have therefore tabled a further amendment specifically requiring the Secretary of State to have due regard to such features when deciding how to exercise the power, ensuring that these risks are properly addressed in the legislation.

I hope noble Lords will recognise that, taken together, these changes demonstrate the Government’s determination to proceed with this work and to do so in a manner that meets the concerns raised across both Houses. They provide certainty of action, a clear timetable and stronger recognition of harmful and addictive design. This is a balanced, evidence-led approach that protects children now and remains fit for the digital challenges ahead. I hope noble Lords will recognise this as a credible and responsible landing point, and support the Government’s amendment to deliver strong, effective and decisive action.

Motion A1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nash, insists on the same amendment that was brought to the House last week and would amend government Amendment 38J. It would require the Secretary of State to restrict under-16s from accessing user-to-user services or to restrict specific features or functionalities when making these regulations. I thank the noble Lord and his supporters again for their sustained focus on these vital issues. Protecting children online is not a point of difference between us; it is a shared priority that this Government are determined to deliver on. I welcome the progress already made and the constructive way in which the noble Lord’s amendment now reflects the Government’s approach. However, the government consultation and the legislative means in the Government’s amendment are the most responsible way to get this right, ensuring effective outcomes for children that will last.

The noble Lord’s amendment also specifies the age of 16 for restrictions. We cannot place an under-16 age limit in the Bill; doing so would require the Government to act before the evidence-gathering process is complete and would pre-empt the consultation. The consultation has already received more than 55,000 responses, demonstrating the public’s desire to shape the Government’s approach—and it is right that we listen to them. We recognise that many restrictions may be appropriate for age 16; there may also be specific interventions better suited for those over 16. Many Members of this House have rightly recognised that children of different ages interact with these services differently, which is why the government power now specifically acknowledges this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, in starting, I too recognise the contribution of my noble friend Lord Hacking. But I have to say, as a former Chief Whip in the other place, I am not quite of the same view that rebelling against your party is a sign of conscience. Nevertheless, I thank him for his service and comradeship to me since I have been in this House.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

Thank you very much.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Lord will remain busy even if he is not here. I look forward to hearing his views from afar, as I have heard them from behind me over recent years.

I turn now to Lords Amendments 38V and 38X. This Government have listened carefully to the concerns raised in both Houses and acted decisively to directly address them. I understand from today’s debate that there is a view among noble Lords that the Government may not yet have gone far enough. But it is of course important to remember that it is the passing of this Bill that will ensure that the progress that has been made will be on the statute book.

We are absolutely committed to protecting children online and doing it the right way. Throughout the whole Bill, that has involved discussion, consultation and engagement, including, earlier in its passage, with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, whom I had the pleasure of meeting on a range of issues, which we then looked at in detail in Committee.

Noble Lords have told us that the progress we need to make on this cannot be optional. We agree—that is why we have now put in the Bill the statutory requirement that the Secretary of State “must”, rather than “may”, act following the outcomes of the consultation. Please be reassured that, due to that change, action will follow. It must follow.

Your Lordships’ House also told us that this must happen at pace. That is why we have committed in legislation to a clear timeline. The six-month progress report must set out when regulations will be made. I will come back to that timing point in a moment.

The noble Lord, Lord Nash, reiterated his demand that the age of 16 is included on the face of the legislation. Again, I know there is not necessarily a consensus on whether this is the right thing to do, even among those who are not satisfied with how far the Government have gone already. I think the reason is that it pre-empts the outcome of our consultation, which seeks views on what restrictions on what features and at what age would be best.

We want to be confident that what we introduce works for all children, including the most vulnerable. That is why we are not waiting; we are testing options now, taking evidence from families, and, as I have said, we are putting the legislative powers in place to act quickly once the consultation closes. Our amendment allows for this outcome, but it also allows for a range of other outcomes, including, as I suggested earlier, for example, restricting some of the most harmful functionalities for children older than 16.

We rightly heard noble Lords’ concerns around the harmful and potentially addictive nature of many services. That is exactly why this is explicitly addressed in the consultation. However, in legislation, we have to be a little bit careful about the terms we use. Addiction, for example, is a medical term. A specific diagnosis of social media addiction has not been medically recognised and is a contested concept. If we are not careful, using this term in the legislation is likely to create a high bar for the exercise of the power to tackle the problem of addictive design as it is colloquially understood. Our drafting is intended to specifically capture features which might cause children to overuse services in a risky or harmful way. The Secretary of State must have due regard to these features in exercising the power.

We have gone even further, with a legislative commitment that the Secretary of State must now have regard to how services and features could impact children’s usage of services, and the potential harms excessive use might cause. Collectively, these changes represent a significant strengthening of the Government’s position. They provide certainty of action, urgency and stronger safeguards for children. I urge noble Lords to recognise how far we have gone and to support the government amendments.

We particularly recognise the concerns that have been voiced during this debate and more widely regarding the Government’s intended timescales. I repeat that the power to extend is designed to cover exceptional circumstances only, rather than being a means of delay. Nevertheless, we have heard the arguments this afternoon and I am sure that my colleagues in the Commons will have more to say on timings when the Bill returns to the other place this evening. I am sure everybody will have noted the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, to continue with his constructive engagement with Ministers on that and other issues.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for recognising the progress that we have made on admissions and the published admissions numbers. I hope and believe that we can now be confident that these changes will help to ensure that school admission numbers give all parents a choice of high-quality local school places. That is the objective that we share.

On Amendment 106 in relation to mobile phones, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for recognising the progress that we have made on this, the clarity of the Government’s position that pupils should not have access to their mobile phones during the school day and the recognition of the assurances that my honourable friend Minister Bailey was able to give around the strengthening of the guidance and the enforcement support that we will now put in place.

I recognise the point made by the noble Baroness about the behaviour survey being a good way to measure the impact of the changes the Government have already made. For that reason, I am able to say to the noble Baroness that we can commit to looking at the behaviour survey, seeing the impacts and using that to make any necessary revisions to the guidance by September 2027.

With those assurances, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support the Government given the considerable movement that I think we have made in a range of areas.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 102, in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 102J to 102M.

102J: Clause 56, page 118, line 29, at end insert—
“(4A) In making a determination under subsection (3) or (4), the adjudicator must take into account the potential impact of the determination on—
(a) the quality of education provided at—
(i) the school in question, and
(ii) other schools within the relevant area, and
(b) the ability to give effect to parental preference for—
(i) the school in question, and
(ii) other schools within the relevant area.
(4B) Before determining an admission number under subsection (3) or (4) that is lower than the admission number specified in the admission arrangements to which the objection or reference relates, the adjudicator must consult and have regard to the views of the following persons about alternatives to lowering the admission number—
(a) the local authority for each school within the relevant area,
(b) the admission authority for the school in question, if different from the local authority for the school, and
(c) the Secretary of State.”

--- Later in debate ---

102M: Clause 56, page 118, line 41, at end insert—
““relevant area”, in relation to a school, has the same meaning as in section 88F (see subsection (4) of that section).”

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.

Motion B agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 106, in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 106G to 106J.

106G: 106G After Clause 29, insert the following new Clause—
“Guidance on use of mobile phones etc in schools in England
(1) In Part 10 of the Education Act 1996, after Chapter 2 insert—
“CHAPTER 2A
GUIDANCE ON MOBILE PHONES ETC: SCHOOLS IN ENGLAND
550C Guidance on use of mobile phones etc in schools in England
(1) The appropriate person for a school in England must have regard to guidance described in subsection (2) in exercising functions in relation to the conduct of the school.
(2) The guidance referred to in subsection (1) is guidance issued from time to time by the Secretary of State about registered pupils at schools having mobile phones and other personal interactive communication devices with them, and using them—
(a) during school hours, and
(b) on school premises.
(3) Subsections (4) to (6) apply for the purposes of this section.
(4) “Appropriate person” means—
(a) for the following kinds of school, the head teacher—
(i) a community, foundation or voluntary school;
(ii) a community or foundation special school;
(iii) a maintained nursery school;
(iv) a pupil referral unit;
(v) a school approved by the Secretary of State under section 342 (approval of non-maintained special schools);
(b) for any other kind of school, the proprietor.
(5) “School hours”, in relation to a school, means any time between the start of the first school session on a school day and the end of the last school session on the same day.
(6) References to mobile phones and other personal interactive communication devices do not include references to devices provided by or on behalf of the appropriate person for a school for use by registered pupils.”
(2) In section 89 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (determination by head teacher of behaviour policy), after subsection (6) insert—
“(7) If a notification or guidance given under section 88(2)(b) to the head teacher of a relevant school in England is inconsistent with guidance to which head teachers of relevant schools in England are required to have regard by section 550C of EA 1996 (guidance on use of mobile phones etc), the duty under subsection (2)(b) does not apply to the extent of the inconsistency.””

106J: Title, line 5, after “uniform;” insert “about guidance relating to use of mobile phones and other interactive communication devices in schools;”

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.

Motion C1 not moved.

Motion C agreed.

Schoolchildren: Swimming

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cryer]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the levels of swimming attainment among school children.

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

My Lords, swimming and water safety are vital life skills, and every child should have the opportunity to learn how to swim and how to keep themself safe around water before they leave primary school. The latest figures indicate that 73% of children can swim 25 metres by the time they leave primary school. We are focused on improving that figure through our forthcoming changes to the curriculum and the support for schools to deliver PE and sport.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend, but I have a slightly different figure for 11 year-olds. According to Swim England, only one in four 11 year-olds leaving primary school can swim 25 metres. That is not entirely unrelated to the fact that we have lost 500 pools in the last 16 years. That is not the gross figure; that is the net figure.

Will my noble friend undertake to publish all information and statistics relating to school swimming attainment? Will she also undertake to work with Ministers at the DCMS, among others, to drive up the number of pools, so that the number of operating pools at the end of this Parliament is greater than at the beginning? Will she also undertake to work with Swim England, among others, to reverse this downward trend and make sure that we have more children able to swim when they finish primary school? The bottom line is that swimming is the one sport that can make the difference between life and death.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Starting with the last point first, we are already working with Swim England, among others, to improve both the resource and the curriculum when it comes to swimming and water safety. My noble friend is right about the big fall in pools between 2010 and 2026. In fact, I have a slightly higher figure than 500: my figure is 591 fewer pools. Of course, that is a challenge not only for schools but for local government. I know it is something that colleagues at the DCMS are not only concerned about but have also included in the additional investment they are providing for community facilities.

[Baroness Davies of Devonport (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cryer, for bringing up this subject. He mentioned the loss of pools. I add that 1,200 pools are now more than 40 years old and are coming to the end of their maintenance life. We are losing 25 pools a year at the moment, which are not being replaced. Obviously, wages are up, energy bills are now twice what they were before Covid and those facilities are very expensive to maintain. The loss of that water space means that children are risking swimming in dangerous places instead of in swimming pools, which is where they should swim.

In the 1980s, I gave evidence to the Select Committee that helped to get swimming on the national curriculum. We are not getting our kids swimming. As mentioned, 25% are not learning. At Easter, I went to see a school where they brought a pool in and managed to get 150 classes in instead of its normal 10 because it costs £250 to bus their children to the local swimming pool. Can the Government please tell me that they will think outside the box about how we make sure that our children are taught to swim, because it is a vital skill, not a luxury?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We agree that it is a vital skill, not a luxury, which is why it and water safety are key parts of the national curriculum at key stages 1 and 2. We are also aware that factors including pressures around energy costs and ageing facilities may impact the future provision of sports facilities, including swimming pools. That is why, in June last year, the Government committed £400 million to transform sports facilities, including public leisure, across the whole of the UK over the next four years.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I return to the data and, in particular, swimming attainment by region and socio-economic background. I think many in your Lordships’ House fear that there is a huge disparity. If there is, what plans do His Majesty’s Government have to close that gap in regional variances? If the Minister has the data, it would be really useful. If she does not, will she write to us?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that there is a disparity between ethnic groups, in particular, and between more and less disadvantaged children, which is why this is a national entitlement through the national curriculum. Clearly, we need to do more to ensure that every child is getting opportunities, such as, for example, the £300,000 per year to a consortium led by the Youth Sports Trust to deliver Inclusion 2028, which is a programme that upskills teachers to deliver high-quality, inclusive PE school sport and physical activity, including swimming, to pupils with SEND.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not the case that these pools did not just disappear? They were part of the austerity model that was pursued by the last Tory Government. Have they learned that lesson or are they going to pursue similar policies which starve public resources?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend has put rather more clearly what I slightly pussy-footed around in drawing a comparison between 2010 and 2026. He is right. Those 591 pools did not just disappear by virtue of planning. They disappeared because of a failure of the last Government to invest in not just swimming but local government and public facilities for activity.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, it is not just a question of young people, although that is terribly important. A very high proportion of adults in this country cannot swim. They may have had opportunities, or they may not, but can we also encourage adults, older people, to learn to swim? They are never too old to learn, and they can act as guardians to help others who may get into difficulties. Can we please encourage older people also to learn?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My ministerial responsibilities do not quite stretch to adults and swimming. However, it is a very fair point and, as we have discussed in response to this Question, I will continue working with my ministerial colleagues in DCMS and in MHCLG to ensure that there is provision for adults as well as children to be able to engage in sporting activity, including swimming.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

Swimming is an important part of water safety, and we welcome the fact that the Government have included classroom-based water safety education in the curriculum from September. Bystander rescue, including members of the public safely rescuing a person in distress, remains a weak link in the chain of survival for drowning. In the review of the PE curriculum, will the Minister consider including safe water rescue such as line throwing, using public life-saving equipment and participation in life-saving sport?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that it is already the case that in the strengthened RSHE guidance we have increased the focus on water safety. We have the opportunity, in the review that we are doing post the curriculum and assessment review, to redraft the national PE curriculum. In doing so, I am sure that some of the points made by the noble Lord about essential life-saving competencies will be borne in mind.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I am not sure whether I have to declare my interest, but I try to swim every day. Sadly, I am not quite as fast as my noble friend, but I keep trying.

Could the Minister update the House? The Prime Minister made an announcement in June 2025 about school sports partnerships. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that partnerships are happening with national governing bodies and local clubs in relation to swimming, including for top-up classes?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Well done to the noble Baroness: I am rather more a floater than a swimmer, it would be fair to say. She is right that last June the Prime Minister announced a new national approach to PE and school sport in the PE and School Sport Network, which will bring together the department and schools, along with national governing bodies and local clubs. We are in the process of procuring a national delivery partner for that, and we expect that partner to be in place from autumn 2026.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will be aware that in the Navy we are all taught to swim. Does she agree with me that it is rather important that we enhance our swimming ability, because the reduced number of ships we have do not now have the weapons they require to defend themselves, and unfortunately that may mean that people have to swim more than they should?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is always clever at turning a question to his advantage. I will simply say that I absolutely know, as I think he does, the significance that this Government place on increased investment in our defence capacity, which is why we have seen the largest increase in defence spending pledged since the end of the Cold War, and why I know this is being actively considered not only by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence but by the Chancellor.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 38 in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 38J to 38P.

38J: Page 122, line 38, at end insert the following new Clause—
“Power to require internet service providers to prevent or restrict access by children to internet services
(1) The Online Safety Act 2023 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 214 insert—
“Power to require internet service providers to prevent or restrict access by children to internet services
214A Power to require internet service providers to prevent or restrict access by children to internet services
(1) The Secretary of State may, for the purpose of protecting relevant children from a risk of harm (including harm presented by content), make provision by regulations requiring providers of specified internet services—
(a) to prevent access by relevant children to specified internet services which they provide, or to specified features or functionalities of such services;
(b) to restrict access by relevant children to specified internet services which they provide, or to specified features or functionalities of such services.
(2) “Relevant child” means a child who is of, or under, a specified age (and different ages may be specified for the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1)).
(3) The provision that may be made by regulations under this section includes provision—
(a) about the steps that must or may be taken by a provider for the purposes of complying with a requirement imposed by the regulations;
(b) about the monitoring of compliance with a requirement imposed by the regulations;
(c) about the enforcement of a requirement imposed by the regulations.
(4) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (1)(b) includes, for example, provision requiring a provider of an internet service to—
(a) limit the amount of time per day, or over the course of a specified period, for which relevant children may access the service or a specified feature or functionality of the service;
(b) limit the times of day at which relevant children may access the service or a specified feature or functionality of the service;
(c) restrict access by relevant children to a service or to a feature or functionality of a service by virtue of which—
(i) a user of the service could receive unsolicited contact from a person who is not known to the user;
(ii) a user of the service could encounter live oral communications or live video generated directly on the service, or uploaded to or shared on the service, by a person who is not known to the user;
(iii) a person who is not known to a user of the service could encounter live oral communications or live video generated directly on the service, or uploaded to or shared on the service, by the user;
(iv) a person who is not known to a user of the service could identify the actual or approximate location of the user.
(5) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (3)(c) includes provision for a requirement to be an enforceable requirement for the purposes of Chapter 6 of Part 7.
(6) In making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to the fact that children of different ages may be affected by an internet service, or a feature or functionality of an internet service, in different ways.
(7) Regulations under this section may—
(a) make provision applying any provision of this Act (with or without modifications);
(b) make provision for exceptions to requirements imposed by the regulations;
(c) make provision about the time by which, or period within which, a thing must be done;
(d) make provision by reference to standards, arrangements, specifications or technical requirements as published from time to time;
(e) confer functions on a person, including functions involving the exercise of a discretion, and make provision in connection with the procedure for exercising the functions;
(f) make consequential provision.
(8) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (7)(f) may amend or repeal primary legislation.
(9) OFCOM must, so far as reasonably practicable—
(a) carry out such research or provide such advice as the Secretary of State may request for the purposes of making regulations under this section, and
(b) do so by such time, or within such period, as the Secretary of State may specify in the request.
(10) As soon as reasonably practicable after providing advice under subsection (9), OFCOM must publish the advice.
(11) In this section—
“primary legislation” means—
(a) an Act of Parliament,
(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,
(c) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru, or
(d) Northern Ireland legislation;
“specified” means specified, or of a description specified, in regulations under this section.”
(3) In section 225 (parliamentary procedure for regulations), in subsection (1), after paragraph (e) insert—
“(ea) regulations under section 214A(1),”.”

--- Later in debate ---

38P: Title, line 9, after “schools;” insert “about preventing or restricting access by children to internet services; about the age of consent in relation to processing of a child’s personal data in relation to information society services;”

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

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I shall also speak to Motions A1, A2, D and D1. In this group, we will debate amendments on restricting social media for under-16s, digital literacy in the school curriculum and mobile phones.

I turn first to Motion A1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, which disagrees with Amendments 38J and 38P and proposes new Amendments 38Q and 38U. I will also speak to Motion A2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nash. Amendment 38Q would require social media services to set their own minimum age of access based on their children’s risk assessment under the Online Safety Act. Amendment 38R would amend UK GDPR, so that the digital age of consent is raised from 13 to 16 for some social networking services. Motion A2 seeks to amend government Amendments 38A to 38C, requiring the Secretary of State to restrict under-16s from accessing user-to-user services or to restrict specific features or functionalities when making these regulations.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley and Lord Nash, and other noble Lords for their sustained commitment on these vital issues. Let me be clear that it is a commitment that the Government share; protecting children online is as much a priority for this Government as it is for noble Lords. The question is not whether but how and what action will be taken and who is involved in making sure that that action is right. It is to facilitate this that the Government launched their consultation in March.

I am pleased to see that the noble Lord’s revised amendment considers the variety of measures on which we are seeking views through the consultation. It acknowledges that there are numerous approaches to securing the safety and well-being of our children: a blanket ban for under-16s to access social media; restricting specific “addictive” features or functionalities and risky features; and raising the digital age of consent under the UK GDPR. This is what our consultation is focused on. This shows that the noble Lord agrees with the Government that it is important that we take not only swift action but the correct action. Let me be clear that the government consultation, and the legislative means in the Government’s amendment, is the most responsible way to get this right, ensuring effective outcomes that will last.

The Government’s amendment allows for clear and decisive action. Amendment 38Q, while well intentioned, may give too much discretion to services in setting age restrictions without considering the evidence from the Government’s consultation. Amendment 38R would change the age of digital consent in the UK GDPR only for social networking services, whereas the Government’s consultation asks whether this change should also apply to other online services.

--- Later in debate ---

As the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, said, there is no distinction in the Government’s approach between smartphones and brick phones or dumb phones. The Government talk about how keen they are to give headteachers discretion in this area —not something they were very keen on in every other amendment to this Bill—but the distinction is really important, because it has a bearing on when children first get a smartphone. Parents want to be able to contact their children on the journey to and from school, but they do not need a smartphone for that, so there needs to be distinction in the guidance as well. The Government are obviously very resistant to accepting an opposition amendment, even when headteachers are calling for them to do so. I do not know why headteachers, parents and children would not thank them if they saw sense and accepted this amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, on Motions A, A1 and A2, the Government, as I think I made clear in opening this debate, recognise the concerns raised in this House and the strength of feeling among parents about protecting children online. As I and other Ministers have said, we share that commitment. This is a complex issue, with a range of views, expressed once again today during this debate, about how it is best approached.

Points were made by noble Lords about enforcement, the development of the online safety regime, and other issues that my noble friend Lady Lloyd and others in DSIT will continue to think carefully about. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, slightly took us back to discussions that we had earlier on the issue of edtech. I am happy to provide him with further information, expanding on the information that I gave in Committee, about the approach that the Government are taking, particularly to develop the evidence around what is and is not appropriate use of technology in the classroom. Given the strength of feeling, we have been clear in government that it is important that we act not only quickly but in the right way.

The cases in the US, as commented on by noble Lords, have rightly and understandably raised interest. While we do not comment on foreign court judgments, we welcome international efforts to strengthen online safety and will want to learn from what is happening around the world. However, I note that the UK has the most robust online safety framework in the world, with a regulator empowered to issue fines of the same order of magnitude or larger. That is why the Government have announced that we are going to take further action to protect children’s well-being online through our consultation.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and others have identified, there is a range of action in different countries; I agree that it is not the same action in different countries. I was fortunate, before I was confined to my bed before recess, to go to New York, to the Commission on the Status of Women, where I attended a useful session with a focus on the action taken by different countries to protect children online. What I thought was notable was the wide range of different approaches being taken in different countries—different ages, different scope and different speeds at which it was happening. We cannot simply look abroad to find a consistent approach. That is why, while watching very closely what other countries are doing, we want to be confident that what we introduce here works and works for all children, including the most vulnerable. That is why testing options now, taking evidence from families themselves and putting in place the legislative powers to act quickly once the consultation closes is the right thing to do. It means that we can move in months, not years.

As has been said on numerous occasions, the Government’s consultation looks beyond a simple social media ban to a wider range of harms, from addictive design to time spent online, allowing for a more comprehensive and effective response with long-lasting outcomes. It considers at least some of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. In other developments, as I outlined in my opening speech, the Government are taking action through the curriculum, supporting schools to enable children and young people to be much clearer about media literacy and the nature of what they will encounter online at some point, whenever that may be in their lives, when they have access to it. This is clearly an important development, both in the curriculum and in the way in which our schools are teaching.

We have listened to concerns about pace, which was another important theme of the debate today. The argument is that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, would enable faster movement, because we would not need to consult. The Government have laid the groundwork to act swiftly on the outcome of our current consultation without the need for lengthy primary legislation. It is a short, sharp consultation, which we believe is the right thing to do to make sure that we take the right approach. I reiterate that we have been clear that it is not a question of if but how we act. In addition, the government amendment would allow any subsequent regulations to capture a wider range of harmful features and functionalities and to tailor measures to where harms are actually occurring. We are committed to working as quickly as possible to deliver additional protections. We will not wait years, as with the Online Safety Act. We are determined to get it right and we will not compromise on what is best for our children’s future.

There is concern about scope—I think I have responded to some of that concern—and scrutiny. That is why we have tabled legislative powers to act swiftly on the basis of evidence, alongside a clear commitment in the Bill to report to Parliament within six months. We have made it clear that these powers can be used only for the purposes of protecting children. I hear the concerns raised by the noble Lords, Lord Mohammed and Lord Clement-Jones, about Henry VIII powers. To be clear, the power permits the Secretary of State to apply only existing parts of the Online Safety Act, with modification if needed, to ensure that the new regulations are effectively incorporated into the legal framework. The power would not allow this Government, or any future Government, to amend the existing online safety duties. We have been clear that the powers must have due regard to the effects on children of different ages and we have provided, as I outlined in my opening comments, for meaningful scrutiny, through engagement with relevant Select Committees, before any regulations are laid. We have been clear throughout, as demonstrated through these new legislative powers, how we will do this both quickly and effectively.

Moving on to the issue of mobile phones, it is important to reiterate that there has already been progress in the ways in which schools deal with mobile phones. We know that the majority of schools have policies that prohibit mobile phones, which is why we believe that Amendment 106 is unnecessary. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, slightly understated the changes that we have made to the guidance and the range of other measures that we have put in place around the guidance to support head teachers and to enable it to be implemented more quickly.

On the specific issue of whether “not seen, not heard” as an approach is appropriate, she is right—we have now taken that out of the guidance, and we would be willing to consider whether we should be stronger on that. The question that the noble Baroness asked was whether the use of guidance would make this impossible. She knows that the point of guidance, whether statutory or non-statutory, is to provide clarity in the broadest context about how we expect schools to operate in this area. It is a complex area where different schools and different head teachers might have different ways of achieving the outcome—we are all clear that there should not be access to mobile phones for children at any point in the school day—but it is not possible for me to say that it would be impossible, as she knows.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, both the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, and I raised the issue of smartphones as distinct from mobile phones. I understood the Minister to say that she would consider improving the guidance to make it clear that “not seen, not heard” was not in line with the spirit of the guidance. Will she also undertake to look at whether there is any refinement that could be considered in relation to smartphones?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, I will undertake to do that. I think it is interesting that that type of question is exactly the reason why the use of what will become statutory guidance is a more appropriate way of dealing with the nuances of this issue than the type of legislative ban on the face of the Bill that some people are arguing for. Because of that flexibility, I will undertake to do that.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her comments and response to the points raised. I thank all noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, for setting out clearly, alongside myself, our position on social media. I welcome the comments on having better clarity on the smartphones issue. I am not minded to test the opinion of the House on this occasion.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 41B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 41C.

41C: Because the Commons do not consider the Amendment to be necessary in light of periodic reviews to the statutory guidance about the cost of school uniform and because the Department for Education will continue to monitor the cost of school uniform and review the impact of the provisions about school uniform in the Bill.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion B, I shall speak also to Motions B1, C and C1. In this group, we will debate amendments relating to school uniforms and admissions.

Motion B relates to Amendment 41B. Motion B1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, seeks to review the effectiveness of a numeric limit on branded uniform within 12 months, alongside consideration of a monetary cap. His subsequent Motion would require a review of the effectiveness of measures to control branded item costs within 12 months.

I thank the noble Lord again for his championing of this issue. I know from our conversations how dear this issue is to him and how determined he is to make a difference for the children and families in his home town and up and down the country. I admire his commitment to thinking about the various ways in which we can achieve that. I make it clear that we share the aim of bringing down costs for parents, in particular for those who find it most difficult to afford school uniforms. This Government of course want to understand the impact that our manifesto commitment has made and whether it is meeting our shared objectives. As required with legislation, we will conduct a post-implementation review to capture the actual impact of the policy and consider any modifications that may be recommended.

Furthermore, the DfE has engaged with parents and school leaders extensively, over many years, on school uniform policies, including conducting detailed cost surveys. We will continue to monitor the impact of this measure, informed by the latest available evidence. For this reason, legislation on this is unnecessary.

The priority now is to provide certainty for schools and parents about the Government’s intent. We fear that these amendments might risk some uncertainty at a time when schools will be focused on implementing a numeric limit, which was not only a government manifesto commitment but was backed by both parents and the British public. A numeric limit is simple, transparent and enforceable, and we have committed to further strengthening existing statutory guidance to be clear that high-cost compulsory items should be avoided.

Motion C relates to Amendment 102, and Motion C1, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, insists on this amendment. Amendment 102 seeks to limit the circumstances in which the independent adjudicator can specify a lower published admission number—PAN—following an upheld objection. The Government are committed to ensuring that quality and parental choice are central to PAN decisions. Our amendment in lieu, introduced in the other place, makes this clear by ensuring that regulations will require the adjudicator to have regard to the impact on school quality and parental preference when specifying a school’s PAN following an upheld objection.

However, the noble Baroness’s amendment would create a blanket exemption for a significant proportion of schools, with no allowance for local circumstances such as the scale of demographic change. It would hinder sensible, community-focused decision-making. For example, in areas such as London, where most schools are performing well, significantly falling pupil numbers are impacting even good schools. Local authorities and schools are already taking tough decisions about closures, amalgamations and PAN reductions. This measure can and should be part of the solution to ensure that all pupils continue to have a choice of high-quality school places close to home.

Our amendment in lieu will be reinforced through new statutory principles that we intend to apply through secondary legislation, as set out in the policy paper we distributed before the recess. These will inform adjudicator decisions and help ensure that the reduction of good school places will only ever occur as a last resort.

As I emphasised, we are committed to ensuring that school quality and parental choice are central to any decisions on PAN, as set out in the published policy paper and reflected in the amendment passed in the other place, which we are considering today. That is why I can confirm that, should this House desire it, the Government will bring forward an amendment in the other place. This will reflect our commitment that school quality and parental choice must be at the heart of decisions on PAN by placing in the Bill a requirement on adjudicators to take account of school quality and parental preference before deciding a PAN following an upheld objective.

I also commit that we will require the adjudicator, through a mix of primary and secondary legislation, to consult key parties, including the admissions authority, the local authority and the relevant DfE regional director, on their views on alternatives to reducing the PAN before making a determination.

Collectively, this will ensure that reducing places at great schools is only ever a last resort and deliver a choice of good local school places for communities. We will continue to engage with stakeholders, including the Confederation of School Trusts, on this measure, including proposed changes to secondary legislation and the School Admissions Code. We will ensure that a robust decision-making framework is in place to protect high-quality education. The CST has welcomed the amendment made in the other place to the Bill as a step towards achieving that. I beg to move.

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gove (Con)]

My Lords, I support the points made by my noble friends Lady Barran and Lord Agnew. We are approaching the end of our consideration of this legislation, which comes as we all reflect on the huge gains that have been made by English schools in the last two decades. Improvements in schools in England have not been matched by schools in Scotland or Wales. This is not because students in Scotland and Wales are less intelligent or teachers less motivated but because the reforms that were introduced under Tony Blair and sustained during the coalition years and thereafter had two principles at their heart: greater autonomy for the front line and support for good schools to expand, so that their practice could be adopted by schools that were performing less well and so more students could benefit.

Of the two final elements that we are considering here, a government cap on the number of labelled items of school uniform that a school can require of its students is a preposterous piece of micromanagement, driven by the worst sort of virtue signalling. It is designed to convey that the Government are on the side of the poor, even as the measures on planned pupil admission numbers restrict the access of poor students to the very best schools.

When it comes to school uniform, we know from the voices of head teachers on the front line the benefits that an effective school uniform policy can have in contributing to ethos, discipline and a sense of inclusivity when our society is increasingly tribalised and polarised. Rather than listen to the testimony of head teachers—including the country’s very best head teacher, Katharine Birbalsingh, who has pointed out the folly of this policy—the Government insist that the best way of helping the poor is price capping and telling head teachers that they know better. All the evidence of history flies in the face of the course that the Government are setting. The fact that we have an absurd question about whether or not there should be an overall price cap or a price cap on particular items just shows the folly of going down this micro-interventionist line.

The second element that we are debating is pupil admissions numbers. I am grateful to the Minister for acknowledging that there are reasons why we should take account of quality and of the wishes of pupils and parents, but the most effective way of doing so is by not capping the growth of good schools. This legislation allows the Government and their agencies to cap the growth of those good schools to keep less-good schools open and provide a less-good education in the name of bureaucratic and local government convenience.

The purpose of school reform is to give pupils a better education, not to make life easier for bureaucrats or head teachers who are not performing their responsibility. Once again, I wonder what the point of the last two decades of education reform was if the current Government are going to look at those two decades, when politicians across parties were united in increasing autonomy at the front line and helping good schools to expand, and diminish the force of both those changes. It is not too late for the Minister, who played a very distinguished role in the Governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, to say to the current Prime Minister and the current Education Secretary that it is time to learn the lesson from those who went before, rather than repeating the mistakes of a socialist and interventionist past.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, several noble Lords have spoken in this small debate. I particularly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Gove, to the consideration of the Bill. I am not sure that he contributed in the very many sessions we have had up until this point, but better late than never. As always, he had something interesting to say, even if I think he is wrong and disagree with him.

Let us focus, as this group does, on Motion B and Motion B1 on Lords Amendment 41D, which seeks to require a review of the effectiveness of the limit on branded items of school uniform, with particular reference to introducing a monetary cap. As I said in my opening speech, we believe that these amendments are necessary, and I commit to the noble Lord that we will monitor the impact as we implement the limit. That does not need to be in legislation, and the amendment risks creating some uncertainty for schools and parents at a time when schools will be implementing the limit.

For noble Lords’ information, the limit was included in the Government’s manifesto, is widely welcomed by parents and others, and is focused on what we believe is the simplest way to deliver this, which is a limit on branded items in school uniforms. We have been clear about our concerns with a cost cap, which is not the proposal here, and do not believe it would be the most effective way to reduce costs for parents. Our proposal for a numeric limit is clearer and simpler, will deliver savings more quickly and is overwhelmingly backed by parents.

On the discussion about admissions, several noble Lords have spoken to Motion C, relating to Amendment 102, and Motion C1, which insists on it. Amendment 102 seeks to limit the circumstances in which the adjudicator can specify a lower published admissions number. This proposition in this legislation is very much a function of the time, in terms of demography, that we find ourselves in. If we were in a position where the number of children in our schools was growing then all of us—as was the case with the previous Labour Government—would be very relaxed about allowing good schools to expand with no control or very little limitation, but that is not the situation we find ourselves in.

As I suggested in my opening speech, the fall in the number of children coming through the system will create difficult decisions to be made in some areas. They will make the local authority responsibility to ensure a sufficiency of places more complex and risk a situation where good schools are forced to close because of a failure to be able to consider the impact of falling numbers across a range of schools. That is the context in which we are introducing this measure.

This Government support good schools expanding where that is right for the local area. In fact, this measure may help to secure more places in high-performing schools in areas where they are needed, but the noble Baroness’s Motion does not allow sufficient nuance to ensure that local circumstances can be taken into account, especially in this time of changing demographics. Our amendments in lieu will ensure that an independent decision can be taken by the adjudicator, in the local context, and with school quality and parental preference at its heart.

I will respond to a few of the charges made by noble Lords opposite. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is understandably concerned that local authorities might misuse this power to reduce the number of places at academies. To be clear, and I know that the noble Baroness knows this, local authorities will not be able to set an academy’s PAN. The schools adjudicator, not the local authority, will be the final decision-maker. The adjudicator is independent and impartial, and will come to their own independent conclusion on whether to uphold an objection to the PAN.

The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, suggested—given his experience, including his ministerial experience, I am not sure that he meant this—that we were inventing a new set of bureaucrats, in his and others’ words. That is not true. The school adjudicator system has existed and played a very similar role throughout the whole period of the previous Government and the period of the previous Labour Government. This is not something new. What is more, of course, the statutory School Admissions Code and the new regulations that we have committed to will set out what the adjudicator must consider where they uphold an objection and subsequently set the PAN for the school.

As reflected in our amendment, school quality and parental choice will be central considerations and ensure that this power is not used to prop up failing schools. School adjudicators, as I have said, have existed for some time and are independent. They have significant experience of considering objection cases and already consider both objections to PAN reductions and requests by maintained schools to vary their PAN downwards, in the light of a major change in circumstances. They possess considerable, extensive and comprehensive knowledge of the education system and they include MAT CEOs, head teachers, education lawyers and local authority directors, so the characterisation of them as bureaucrats is both factually inaccurate and unfair.

Our amendments would ensure, as I have said, that the independent, expert adjudicator—the system which has existed for very many years throughout several Governments—will be required, in making this decision, to have regard to the impact on school quality and parental preference. They also enable the Government to make regulations on other matters which the adjudicator must or must not take account of when deciding on a PAN.

I just reiterate the point that I made in opening. We recognise the point made by the Confederation of School Trusts about the requirement for the adjudicator to consider, in addition to quality and parental preference, the effectiveness and efficiency of the provision in an area and to consult key parties, including the relevant DfE regional director, on their views on alternatives to reducing a PAN before making a determination. It is clear that alternatives must have been considered as part of that process.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 102 in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 102C to 102G.

102C: Clause 56, page 118, line 33, leave out “may make provision”

--- Later in debate ---

102G: Clause 56, page 118, line 41, at end insert—
““relevant area”, in relation to a school, has the same meaning as in section 88F (see subsection (4) of that section).”

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.

Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 106 in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 106C to 106E.

106C: Page 50, line 25, at end insert the following new Clause—
“Guidance on use of mobile phones etc in schools in England
In Part 10 of the Education Act 1996, after Chapter 2 insert—
“CHAPTER 2A
GUIDANCE ON MOBILE PHONES ETC: SCHOOLS IN ENGLAND
550C Guidance on use of mobile phones etc in schools in England
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations require the appropriate person for a school in England to have regard to guidance described in subsection (2) in exercising functions relating to the conduct of the school.
(2) The guidance referred to in subsection (1) is guidance issued from time to time by the Secretary of State about registered pupils at schools having mobile phones and other personal interactive communication devices with them, and using them—
(a) during school hours, and
(b) on school premises.
(3) Subsections (4) to (6) apply for the purposes of this section.
(4) The “appropriate person” is—
(a) for the following kinds of school, the head teacher—
(i) a community, foundation or voluntary school;
(ii) a community or foundation special school;
(iii) a maintained nursery school;
(iv) a pupil referral unit;
(v) a school approved by the Secretary of State under section 342 (approval of non-maintained special schools);
(b) for any other kind of school, the proprietor.
(5) “School hours”, in relation to a school, means any time between the start of the first school session on a school day and the end of the last school session on the same day.

106E: Title, line 5, after “uniform;” insert “about guidance relating to use of mobile phones and other interactive communication devices in schools;”

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion D, and I beg to move.

Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)

Moved by

Masculinity and Misogyny in Schools

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berger]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the results of the recent survey by the NASUWT on masculinity and misogyny in schools.

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

My Lords, misogyny has no place in our society or in our schools. The NASUWT survey is deeply concerning and underscores why delivering on the freedom from violence 10-year strategy to halve violence against women and girls is a necessity and a government priority. This Government are committed to tackling misogyny and the spread of toxic influences, with new misogyny resources for both teachers and parents, dedicated school programmes through the new VAWG strategy, and online safety resources.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, the NASUWT survey indicates that misogyny is on the rise among our young people. Some 23% of female teachers have experienced misogyny in our classrooms; this figure has increased year on year and is up 6% since 2023. Teachers are pointing to the influence of the manosphere, online misogyny and AI in spreading harmful narratives, and evidence indicates that social media use by young men is driving this growth in misogynistic beliefs. What assessment have the Government made of the role social media is playing in this worrying trend?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am sure it is the case that social media has had an impact here. We know the influence that those who choose to use it to express toxic masculinity and misogyny can have. That is why we need to support schools, as we are doing through increased investment in resources to help teachers and students to tackle misogyny. It is why the consultation on social media use among young people that the Government have launched is so important, and why we have committed to act on its conclusions.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, to pick up on the point about parents that the Minister raised, how do the Government intend to engage with not only parents but communities, particularly to deal with the negative cultural influences on the perception of women among some of our young people? It is not just in schools that this issue is happening; often it occurs at weekends and in our city centres. How can we engage with communities, as well as parents?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point. This needs to be tackled outside school, as well as inside. That is why the DfE has worked jointly with DSIT to design, test and launch a website for parents of all-age children to help them keep their children safe online. We are currently developing misogyny-specific content for that site that will give parents information and tools to spot warning signs and hold open conversations, and will direct them to further support that will link with the Home Office’s Enough campaign, about which we will be saying more soon.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, will the Government start with children in primary school?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The new RSHE guidance that we published and the curriculum are clear that there is important work to be done at key stage 2 to support children to develop their ideas and approach to healthy relationships. That is a really important baseline from which to talk more explicitly later in their school life about misogyny and how it is tackled.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, this report makes for quite harrowing reading, and it points to two particular things: one is misogyny and the other is a breakdown of discipline and respect for authority in school. What work are the Government doing to address this issue, which covers both girls and boys? In speaking to young boys about their behaviour, how are we going to avoid demonising boyhood?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes two important points. On the latter point, it is important that we recognise that the vast majority of boys and young men abhor misogyny as much as anybody else. Supporting them to be strong allies and to challenge their friends where necessary is an important part of the work. As the noble Lord suggests, one of the shocking elements of the NASUWT report is the suggestion that students are using misogyny to abuse teachers. Good behaviour in all our schools is the right of pupils and teachers. That is why every school has a legal responsibility to have a strong behaviour policy, and why we would expect strong action to be taken to protect staff, just as we would expect for students.

[Baroness Primarolo (Lab)]

My Lords, unfortunately, girls are not always able to feel safe in calling out sexist or abusive behaviour that they experience from other pupils in schools. What more can be done in schools, and after school, to give girls the confidence to speak out and feel safe?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend raises an important point—we want girls to be able to feel safe and to report, as she suggests. However, it should be not only the responsibility of girls to stand up for themselves in the face of misogyny; it should be part of the whole-school approach to challenge that and part of a school’s safeguarding process. Support for that is clearly spelled out in the Keeping Children Safe in Education statutory guidance, for staff to understand how to support girls when they report incidents and how to identify what is happening even if those incidents are not reported.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, is there any evidence that the problem is worse with a decline of single-sex schools? Would things be better if there were more single-sex schools, at least for girls?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The truth is that I do not know whether there is any evidence that supports that contention. The vast majority of children in this country do not go to single-sex schools. We need to ensure that every school, single-sex or not, recognises the need to tackle misogyny and is supported, as this Government will do, with the resources to be able to do that.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister acknowledged the impact of harmful social media on our children’s attitudes and behaviour, so I am puzzled why the Government will not commit in primary legislation to restricting access to social media for under-16s. The noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd, the Secretary of State for DSIT, and the Prime Minister have all said that they intend to, but the government amendment does not include that commitment. Can the Minister explain why?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Can I say how much I am enjoying getting back to this in the next stage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill on Monday? We will have the opportunity, once again, to discuss the action that this Government have already taken to understand the concerns that there are about social media and to recognise the different views on how, in detail, we should respond. That is why, on 2 March, this Government launched the consultation on how, not whether, we should take action, with further measures to ensure that children have healthy relationships with technology, mobile phones and social media. It is why we tabled new powers that mean that we can act fast on the consultation’s findings—in months, rather than waiting years for new primary legislation every time technology evolves. I do not think it is unreasonable for a Government to act on the basis of consultation and detailed consideration.

[Baroness Teather (LD)]

My Lords, last week, I attended the Cambridge Disinformation Summit run by the Judge Business School, where a key takeaway for me was that restricting young people’s access to social media is not on its own a sufficient response to the risks that we are discussing today. Does the Minister agree that we need accountability from social media companies on algorithms that promote and target extremist content to both adults and children?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I largely agree with the noble Baroness. It is important that the strong powers within the Online Safety Act are implemented. However, the logic of her argument is that we need to make sure that we support children and young people and our schools to be able to challenge misogyny and avoid falling for the toxic influencers, while strengthening the good values and attitudes that most young people have. That is what we will be supporting our schools to do.