Erasmus+ Eligibility: Asylum Seekers
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, and with the permission of my noble friend Lady Bakewell, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK has agreed terms to join the Erasmus+ programme in 2027. The scope of the programme is set by the European Commission, and diversity and inclusion is a key priority. Erasmus+ dedicates additional support to people with fewer opportunities, which includes people with migrant or refugee backgrounds. Asylum seekers can benefit from a variety of Erasmus+ activities, such as inclusion projects aimed at fostering social integration, virtual exchanges or school twinning.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Like many Members across the House, I hope, I am pleased that the UK’s resumption of participation in Erasmus+ is taking place. I hope that by the summer there will be a website with further information available. Does my noble friend agree that Erasmus+ supports the Government’s opportunities mission by enabling people from a wide range of backgrounds to take part? Can she confirm that participation will enable institutions to collaborate with international partners on areas such as innovation and educational improvement, which will strengthen the UK’s global reputation for education and training?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Yes, my noble friend is absolutely right. This is an enormously exciting opportunity for learners, for educators, for young people and for our communities. It is an investment in opportunity for our young people, our workforce and our future, opening doors for tens of thousands of people across the UK to benefit from those experiences. As my noble friend says, this includes our ability to learn from, and also share, the enormously important contribution that education makes to this country, to our exports and to our standing in the world.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I very much support the inclusion in this programme of those who have successfully got refugee status in the United Kingdom, in order to strengthen their integration into our society. But can the Minister explain why it is also open to those still seeking asylum who have not yet established their right to be in the United Kingdom? Many of those people’s claims will ultimately not be successful, and I do not know why we are spending significant amounts of our taxpayers’ money on putting on a very expensive European scheme when they have not yet established their right to be in our country.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Of course, the nature of the rights of asylum seekers means that they would not, for example, be able to benefit from travel overseas. Were they to be volunteering or in education, they could benefit from Erasmus programmes there.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, may I press the Minister on the question of diversity in accessing Erasmus+, particularly in regard to pupils from state schools? I do not want international mobility to be the preserve just of schools in the private sector.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is exactly right. That is why we need to make sure, with this opportunity that we have with Erasmus+, that we do better than we did the last time we were in the Erasmus scheme in making sure that we get the benefits in the UK. It is a job for us all to make sure that our schools, universities, training providers and colleges understand the chances and are able to take them up, and that we see those chances shared widely among all those who could benefit.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this is to be welcomed, but I am more concerned about the million unemployed young people—18 to 24 year-olds—who are not in education, training or work. I think this should be our number one priority. We should be talking about it all the time. The number of apprenticeships was pitiful before Covid and has collapsed since. Can the Minister update us on what the Government are doing to set an example, massively increase the number of apprenticeships in the public sector and require all those organisations in receipt of public funds or working on public sector contracts to employ apprentices as well?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
This is a number one priority. In my work in the Department for Work and Pensions, the Secretary of State has been completely clear about the focus that we need to place on youth unemployment, on our youth guarantee and on appropriately spending the £1.5 billion that we received from the Budget in order to make sure that we reduce that million young people who are starting their working lives neither earning nor learning, with all the impact for them and the economy; and that we turn around the 40% decrease that we have seen in young people’s apprenticeship starts in order to provide opportunities for young people to be not only in work but in skilled work that will last them throughout their lives.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, it will cost taxpayers an estimated £9 billion to rejoin Erasmus. The projected special educational needs and disabilities funding deficit for 2028 is £6 billion and likely to rise. There are always trade-offs, but do the Government prefer to spend £9 billion on 17,000 students going overseas or £9 billion on 1.7 million special educational needs pupils and those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Austin of Dudley?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am sorry, but I do not recognise those figures. What we have agreed is the joining of the last year of this round of Erasmus+ in 2027, at a 30% discount—something not achieved by the party opposite—saving UK taxpayers around £240 million and ensuring benefit to tens of thousands of UK students, school students, apprentices, youth groups and sports groups. I think that is good value for money in terms of individual opportunity, the change and the impact it will have on our status in the world, and our education system’s earnings.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, I am proud that both the University of Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam University offer sanctuary scholarships to support talented students who have sought asylum in the UK. Noble Lords will know that many asylum seekers and refugees arrive in the UK already equipped with language skills, vocational training and, indeed, advanced degrees. Given the Government’s intention to introduce an international student levy on English higher education providers, will any of the revenue raised be reinvested in asylum seekers and refugees pursuing higher education or further education in this country?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
All the revenue raised from the international student levy will be invested into higher education and the rest of the skills system, including the reintroduction of maintenance grants to enable students from all backgrounds to benefit from our world-class higher education. Our decision to lift the cap and to index-link tuition fee increases over the next few years will increase revenues to universities by £6 billion, while the international student levy will be a maximum of £1 billion, and not until 2027-28.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, it was an absolute travesty that we left Erasmus with Brexit.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
Thank you, my Lords. I entirely agree with everything the noble Baroness has said, but are we rejoining Erasmus on the same conditions? Will our young people have the same opportunities as they had under the old system of Erasmus?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
No, we are joining Erasmus on much better financial arrangements, with a 30% discount, for a larger scheme that will provide more opportunities for our young people and, in fact, for people throughout their lives, because in adult education you can benefit from this as well. We will get the benefit if we wholeheartedly embrace the opportunities that Erasmus brings and ensure that, across the country, schools, universities, apprenticeship providers, youth clubs and sports clubs are making the most of this opportunity.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right. We have a job, as I was just suggesting, to make sure that schools around the country understand the potential of Erasmus. That is why we will soon be in a position to announce the national agency that will be co-ordinating this. As my noble friend Lord Stansgate said, information will be available soon to enable schools, universities and others to have the information that they need in order to develop the projects that will benefit children across the country.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for his relentless focus on tackling poverty through the Big Issue and Big Issue Invest, investing in social enterprises, social purpose businesses and charities trying to end poverty and reduce inequality in the UK.
Your Lordships’ House is united in its determination to address child poverty and the range of complex issues that drive it. While we fully recognise the firm intent behind this amendment, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition retain a number of reservations, which we shared in Committee. We unequivocally hold a desire to reduce child poverty, but the issue is deeply complex. We have concerns that legally binding targets determined by central government risk overlooking the local and regional variances in the causality and the experiences of child poverty. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, highlighted in Committee, the pursuit of targets can often shift the focus on to particular statistics rather than people’s lived experiences. Central government must be able to adapt to ever developing needs and realities, in addition to enabling local authorities and organisations—which are often better placed to understand these esoteric local challenges—to act accordingly.
We will therefore welcome seeing the details of the Government’s child poverty strategy when it is published in the autumn, including new monitoring and evaluation arrangements to track progress, which, with the right strategy for delivery, should yield results. We once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for his dedication to this vital issue. While we cannot support the amendment directly, we strongly welcome the intentions behind it.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 107, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to set legally binding child poverty reduction targets. I agree with other noble Lords that we have a shared objective to tackle child poverty. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for his commitment, the campaigning that he does and for the engagement with the Government on child poverty. We had a very good meeting, I thought, where we talked about the work of the Big Issue and the rightful challenge to the Government to ensure that the structure within government and the measurement of our objectives meet the challenge that has been set here. I will talk about how we will ensure that this happens.
I am proud that this Government have now published our child poverty strategy, going far beyond rhetoric—as one noble Lord suggested that we should do. But I do not agree with those who have argued that all Governments are the same or that the strategy lacks credibility. Several noble Lords have quoted the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Its annual poverty report, published yesterday, states that the child poverty strategy is “hugely welcome”—particularly after the last Government made no progress in reducing poverty. The foundation welcomes the child poverty strategy delivering the projected biggest reduction in child poverty in a single Parliament.
We have been clear that our wide-ranging child poverty strategy will see the largest reduction in child poverty by any Government in a single Parliament, lifting 550,000 children out of poverty, principally through the expansion of free school meals and removing the two-child limit. These are both things that this Government have already done—to take up the challenge set by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. But, of course, we need to measure and demonstrate progress being made on this strategy.
I completely take on board that challenge. That is why the monitoring and evaluation framework, which was published alongside the strategy, set out that a baseline report will be published in summer 2026, with annual reporting on progress thereafter. It will be quite clear what progress the Government are making in a range of areas, and it will be possible to hold this Government to account for delivering on this crucial strategy and on our objectives. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that it will be very clear to voters that this Government will make progress, as the previous Labour Government did, in tackling the scourge of child poverty.
We recognise that our approach to monitoring and evaluation will need to evolve and adapt, as the strategy must, reflecting the dynamic nature of poverty and the broader social and economic factors that influence it. Although I understand the powerful point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, about the government machinery for ensuring progress, I think a strength of the child poverty strategy is that it is explicitly cross-government. It recognises that it will need action in a range of different areas to tackle child poverty. I also take his point that there needs to be a central directing part of government. That is why we have committed to maintain a child poverty team with cross-government oversight by Ministers.
These clear reporting arrangements and the focus on child poverty within government show our commitment and leadership and will ensure that the progress that we make is transparent to all. We will continue to work closely with the whole sector committed to tackling child poverty, as we have done in developing the strategy. We believe that this is the best approach, rather than introducing statutory targets. For these reasons, I hope I have provided some assurance about the commitment of this Government, the broad action that we will take as a result of the strategy, and the measurement and evaluation that we will put in place in order to ensure that the public and this House can hold us to account for progress. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bird (CB)
Thank you very much. I have decided to join the Conservative Party. Can I meet the noble Earl afterwards and fill in the forms? Forgive me, I was only joking. I have never received such praise in the House.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I was trying to say that we need a new toolkit to dismantle poverty. Having a way of measuring it and of taking people to task because we say, “This is what you said you would achieve” can never be, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, the be-all and end-all. It must be part of the road towards the accumulation of evidence, the accumulation of opportunity and the accumulation of thinking that gets us somewhere we have never been before.
I do not want to pooh-pooh the Government or any Government for achieving the remarkable removal of 450,000 young people from poverty, but what about the other 4 million? That is the real problem. The real problem is that we are passing from generation to generation. A load of people who I have identified— 90% of the people I work with in homelessness, 90% of the people I work with in long-term unemployment, and 90% of the people I work with in the custodial system—come from the inheritance of poverty. They inherit poverty in the same way that Boris Johnson or David Cameron or anybody else inherits their position in the pecking order. If we have a situation where we have millions of people never arriving at the starting line of life, we have a major problem. That is where we need to concentrate our energy.
“Free school meals etc: information sharing(1) Section 110 of the Education Act 2005 (supply of information) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (4), after “local authority” insert “or the appropriate authority of a relevant school in England”(3) In subsection (5)—(a) at the end of paragraph (a), omit “or”;(b) at the end of paragraph (b), insert“or(c) to the appropriate authority of a relevant school in England,”.(4) After subsection (5) insert—“(5A) Information to which subsection (1) or (2) applies may be supplied to the Secretary of State, or any person providing services to the Secretary of State, for use for the purpose of determining whether relevant financial assistance is payable or expendable in respect of a person in England.(5B) Information to which subsection (2) applies may be supplied to a local authority in England or the appropriate authority of a relevant school in England for use for the purpose mentioned in subsection (5A).(5C) Information received by virtue of subsection (5A) may be supplied—(a) to another person to whom it could have been supplied under that subsection,(b) to a local authority in England, or(c) to the appropriate authority of a relevant school in England,for use for the purpose mentioned in subsection (5A). (5D) A person who (after receiving information by virtue of this section) makes a determination described in subsection (3) or (5A) in respect of a person in England may communicate the determination to—(a) a parent of the person in respect of whom the determination was made,(b) a local authority in England, or(c) the appropriate authority of a relevant school in England.(5E) The communication may include information about the statutory provision or the arrangements under which the person in respect of whom the determination is made is eligible for free school lunches.”(5) After subsection (6), insert—“(6A) The references in this section to a local authority in England include references to any person exercising on behalf of such an authority functions relating to eligibility for free school lunches and milk or relating to relevant financial assistance.”(6) For subsections (7) and (8) substitute—“(7) For the purposes of this section, determining “eligibility for free school lunches and milk” means determining—(a) whether school lunches or milk must be provided for a person, free of charge and on request, in accordance with—(i) section 512ZB(2) or (3) of the Education Act 1996,(ii) regulations under section 342 of that Act (non- maintained special schools), or(iii) Academy arrangements;(b) whether school lunches or milk may or must be provided for a person, free of charge, by a local authority in England or the appropriate authority of a relevant school in England in accordance with one or both of the following—(i) the terms of relevant financial assistance;(ii) guidance issued by the Secretary of State.(8) The reference to school lunch in subsection (7)(b) includes food equivalent to a school lunch provided for a person educated otherwise than at school.(8A) In this section—“the appropriate authority” means—(a) in relation to a community, foundation or voluntary school or a community or foundation special school, the governing body;(b) in relation to a pupil referral unit, the local authority which maintains the unit;(c) in relation to any other kind of relevant school, the proprietor;“functions relating to social security” includes functions relating to Part 6 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999;“relevant financial assistance” means financial assistance given under section 14 of the Education Act 2002—(a) to a local authority in England or the appropriate authority of a relevant school in England, and(b) in connection with child welfare or the provision of education;“relevant school” means—(a) an Academy school,(b) an alternative provision Academy,(c) a community, foundation or voluntary school,(d) a community or foundation special school,(e) a non-maintained special school (within the meaning given by section 337A of the Education Act 1996), (f) a pupil referral unit, or(g) a city technology college or city college for the technology of the arts;“school lunch” has the same meaning as in section 512 of the Education Act 1996.””Member’s explanatory statement
This clause would amend section 110 of the Education Act 2005 to allow for information to be shared in order to identify persons who are eligible for free school meals, or are intended beneficiaries of financial assistance given to local authorities and schools under the Education Act 2002.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, we have listened with interest to the valuable contributions during this debate, and we thank all noble Lords who have both spoken to and tabled amendments in this group.
Amendment 114, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, seeks to fulfil the Government’s commitment to lowering the cost of school uniforms, but by a monetary cap rather than a limit on branded items. The principle of focusing on the actual cost to families, rather than on the number of branded items, underlines His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition’s support for both this amendment and for Amendment 117 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton. Both these amendments seek to address the real issue at the centre of the Government’s concern: bringing down the cost of school uniforms.
It surely makes sense that items provided or loaned free of charge to a pupil should be excluded from the restriction on branded items, on the basis that this imposes no financial burden on families and gives schools greater flexibility, while acknowledging that they already try to help pupils where possible.
I turn to Amendment 118 from the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, which seeks to extend the VAT zero rating for certain items of pupils’ school uniform to the age of 16. As was noted in Committee, children’s clothing and footwear designed for children under 14 years of age already attracts a zero rate of VAT if they meet specific conditions. We would therefore be grateful to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to address the issue of raising the zero VAT threshold from 14 to 16, which would address noble Lords’ concerns.
Amendment 119, in the name of my noble kinswoman Lady Boycott, seeks to prohibit school uniform items which contain PFAS chemicals. Amendment 119A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, similarly requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the health implications of school uniforms. While existing guidance asks schools to consider sustainability and ethical supply chains, my noble kinswoman is entirely correct: we must also consider health concerns. We look forward to hearing from the Minister about what work the Government will commit to when undertaking these many important issues.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, it seems appropriate to follow the debate on child poverty with a debate about the action this Government are taking to cut costs for families—in this case, our commitment to cutting the cost of school uniforms for families by limiting the number of branded items that schools can require pupils to have. This will give parents the flexibility to buy more items from a range of retailers, including high street retailers, and to make spending decisions that suit their circumstances.
Turning to the specifics of the amendments, Amendment 117, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, would exclude from the limit on branded uniform items which have been loaned or provided free of charge to pupils. It would allow schools to require pupils to wear more than three branded items of uniform—or more than four where a secondary school includes a branded tie—provided that parents do not have to pay for them. I appreciate the issues and concerns underpinning this amendment, particularly the need to preserve schools’ ability to lend or give branded uniform, or the ability to accept loans or gifts of sports equipment, but it is not necessary.
Following my letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on this matter, I wrote to Peers highlighting the recent draft statutory guidance, confirming that optional items are excluded from the limit. Schools may still sell, loan, or provide additional branded items, provided that wearing them is optional. For example, schools will still be able to loan or provide a specific kit for inter-school sports competitions, as many already do. However, schools should not require pupils to wear branded items for activities unless they count towards the limit. If a pupil cannot or does not wish to wear a loaned branded item, schools should allow a suitable alternative such as a plain sports shirt in a similar colour, or another branded item already part of their PE kit or uniform.
Speaking as the former goalkeeper of the Dyson Perrins CofE Academy hockey team, and goal attack of the netball team, I think I would have been perfectly able to recognise my team, even if one or two of them had been wearing a school-coloured plain shirt rather than the PE kit that had been loaned to them.
I am not sure that it is the disastrous impact that noble Lords here are suggesting, but what is disastrous is where the cost of uniform becomes a barrier to participation at school, including in extracurricular activities. As the noble Lord said, the limit applies only to items required by schools and not external bodies. Our guidance clarifies that Scouts and cadet force uniforms are not captured. As I explained in Committee, we want clarity for parents. This amendment risks confusion about whether a compulsory branded item counts towards the statutory limit, depending on how it was obtained. There is also a risk that, if schools become overly reliant on loaning out key elements of uniform, parents may fear being charged for expensive replacements if those items are lost or damaged.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that a parent must obtain local authority consent to withdraw their child from school if the authority has taken action under section 47(8) of the Children Act 1989 at any time during the period of 5 years prior to the application.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, before I turn to the groups concerning home education, I thank noble Lords for the thoughtful contributions made in Committee and those who have engaged since then in detailed discussions with my department. I want to reiterate that most families who choose to home-educate do so with their child’s best interests at heart. They do not present safeguarding concerns, and it is not the Government’s intention to place unnecessary burdens on them.
However, we must face the reality that some children are in unsafe or unsuitable education and, unlike children in school, they can lack regular contact with adults who can safeguard and support them. These measures seek to strike the right balance between recognising parents’ right to home-educate while ensuring that vulnerable children do not slip through the cracks. They follow repeated attempts by the previous Government and others to legislate for children not in school registers. Of course, new evidence recently has come to light that further underlines the need for appropriate information sharing, earlier identification of children’s needs and stronger safeguards for home-educated children.
The local child safeguarding practice review into the tragic death of Sara Sharif, the NSPCC’s Tipping Point report, and Ofsted and CQC’s thematic review into children not in school all underline the need for more touchpoints for children who are currently being home-educated or children in school who may become home-educated in future. In reflecting on the findings of the Sara Sharif review, it is important to be clear that, while home education was relevant to Sara’s visibility to agencies, her death was caused by the actions of her father, not by her being home-educated. The review identified serious system-level failures across multiple agencies. That is why the Bill contains a broader set of reforms to strengthen multi-agency practice, improve information sharing and enhance professional oversight and decision-making across children’s social care.
The children not in school provisions and the amendments that we are tabling in response to the review serve a distinct and more targeted purpose. They are designed to provide proportionate safeguards at the specific points where children can become less visible to professionals, without replicating or expanding the child protection system. These measures will help to ensure that children who may benefit from early help or additional support are not overlooked, while maintaining protections for family privacy and parental choice.
Our government amendments improve safeguards for vulnerable children, cut red tape in relation to children not in school registers and strengthen the support offer for home-educating parents. Statutory guidance will provide greater reassurance on data protection and explain the routes of complaint and appeal for parents.
Government Amendment 120 would extend the consent requirement to parents of children who have been on child protection plans in the last five years. It is important to remember that child protection plans are not entered into lightly. They are reserved for those children who are suffering or at risk of significant harm, and for whom urgent, co-ordinated action is needed to keep them safe.
Children do come off child protection plans. With the right support, family circumstances can stabilise, risks can reduce and families can make meaningful, sustained change. I commend those parents who work constructively with support from social care services. Their commitment is often what makes it possible for child protection plans to be discharged. But many families who come off child protection plans need ongoing support to sustain progress. Removing a child from school for home education could be destabilising and make them vulnerable to harm again. That is why we have tabled this amendment: to provide an additional check for children who have recently come off plans, checking that their progress can be sustained if they move into home education.
Government Amendments 165, 169 and 172 would allow local authorities to require school attendance, where it is in a child’s best interests, for children who have been on a child protection plan in the last five years. School is not only a place where a child can receive a suitable full-time education. For some children it is also a protective space—somewhere they are guaranteed access to pastoral support and adults outside the home. For children who are experiencing or are at risk of significant harm, it can be in their best interests to attend school for this reason.
Given the potential for children who have recently been discharged from plans to become vulnerable to harm again without continuing support and engagement, it is right that we extend the power for local authorities to require these children to attend school via the school attendance order process if it would be in the child’s best interests to do so. Crucially, my Amendment 172 would ensure that any school attendance order made on these grounds must be revoked once the five-year period has passed, provided that there is no current child protection plan or Section 47 inquiry.
Government Amendments 125 and 126 would provide for a pilot scheme in selected areas under which local authorities must meet with parents wishing to withdraw their child from school for home education. Any decision to introduce these meetings nationally following the pilot would be subject to affirmative regulations and a consultation.
The review into the death of Sara Sharif recommended that a meeting take place before children about whom there are concerns are removed from school, as a way of preventing children who are being harmed from slipping under the radar. Our amendments also look to address the separate concerns that have been raised in both Houses about families who are driven to home education because they feel that their child’s needs are not being met in school. No parent should find themselves in that position.
If parents choose to home-educate, it should be an informed decision made with a clear understanding of the alternatives, the commitments involved and the support available from their local authority. These meetings are intended to help parents in their decision-making process as well as to identify children who may need support.
In pilot areas, before their child’s name is removed from the school roll, parents wishing to home-educate their child would be required to attend a meeting with the local authority. The meeting would cover their reasons for wishing to home-educate; the responsibilities of local authorities and parents in relation to home education; how the parent plans to secure a suitable full-time education for their child; safeguarding and welfare; any support needs the child may have and how these could be met; and anything else relevant to the parent’s decision to withdraw the child for home education.
Children will be required to attend the meeting with their parents unless exceptional circumstances apply. It is important that children have opportunities to express their views, and this meeting would provide one such opportunity. Statutory guidance would set out circumstances in which attendance may not be appropriate.
Unless a parent requires permission from the local authority to home-educate their child—such as when their child is on a child protection plan—and that permission is declined, the child’s name must be deleted from the school roll after the meeting has concluded. The child will then be added to the local authority’s children not in school register and the authority will record the outcome of the meeting. If the local authority has concerns based on the meeting, these should be followed up.
We expect that many parents would welcome these meetings as a constructive starting point with their local authority, but recognise that some may feel anxious about this requirement. That is why this amendment requires a pilot scheme and not an immediate national rollout. We want to be confident that these meetings would deliver clear benefits for children and families.
To provide further reassurance, the amendment will place clear limits on the pilot: it must be introduced within two years of the section containing the pilot and consent measure coming into force; it must run for only two to five years; and it may involve no more than 30% of local authorities in England or Wales. Further details on the pilot will be set out in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure and in statutory guidance, which will be informed by a consultation.
Government Amendment 131 would require local authorities to assess a child’s home environment within 15 days of them becoming registered on their children not in school register, and to consider the other settings where the child is being educated, of which the local authority is aware, within 15 days of recording this information on their registers. As part of this new requirement, local authorities will be empowered to visit the child in their home.
This responds directly to a recommendation from the review into the death of Sara Sharif, which made clear the importance of setting a clear expectation that local authorities consider the suitability of a child’s home environment as soon as possible after withdrawal from school. The most straightforward way for a local authority to meet this requirement is to visit the family in their home at the point of registration. For many families, a visit from their elective home education officer is already a routine part of an annual check-in.
As local authorities will be required to consider the child’s home and empowered to request a home visit, we have also tabled Amendment 134, which requires registers to hold information about any address that a registered child lives at in addition to their primary home. This amendment is intended to address circumstances where a child has more than one residence—for example, where they reside with each separated parent.
Government Amendment 145 would allow the outcomes of any home visits or considerations of the child’s home and education settings to be prescribed for inclusion in children not in school registers. If local authorities are required to actively consider these environments, it is important that the conclusions that they have drawn are recorded. This would ensure an audit trail of any concerns and the steps taken in response.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I shall start, where the noble Lord, Lord Storey, finished in recognising the work of Lord Soley, who devoted many years to this issue. I hope somewhere, in his retirement, he is aware of what is happening here.
As we have discussed previously, there are at least three groups of families who educate their children at home: those who do so for philosophical reasons, where they make a positive choice; those who feel their children are struggling at school—many of whom, as we heard from my noble friend Lady Shephard, have special needs—and may not have chosen home education but believe it is in their best interests; and those whose children are faced with exclusion from school or other issues, where we are right to have concerns about their safety. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, whom I genuinely have huge respect for—I am grateful for the collaborative way he has worked on this Bill across the House—talked about serious case reviews, but two-thirds of serious case reviews are of children of preschool age, so we are not comparing apples with apples.
The Government have introduced some very serious, albeit belated, and positive amendments, partly in response to the recommendations from the review of the death of Sara Sharif. Again, like the noble Lord, Lord Storey, we welcome government Amendments 125 and 131 in particular, which would pilot holding a meeting with parents before removing a child from school and giving the option of a visit within 15 days of a child starting home education. But in principle, we support almost all the government amendments in this group.
However, government Amendments 120 and 131 leave material gaps, which I believe we have a duty to close. I was very fortunate to meet recently the authors of the Sara Sharif serious case review, Russell Wate and Jane Wonnacott, in their capacity as independent experts in this area. My revised amendments to Clauses 31 and 32 stem largely from that conversation and might have made a difference in her case but also in many others. The national Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel report looked at the cases of 41 home-educated children, six of whom died and 35 of whom suffered serious harm. Of this group, half had never been to school and just over half had no agency involvement at the time. So, not all these children were visible.
We need to be able to talk about this group of children without in any way casting aspersions on the good intentions, commitment and efforts of parents who are bringing up their children by educating them at home who are not at risk. But we do need to learn lessons from these reviews. That is why we write them. And we have to have a proportionate approach to the risk those children face.
I am grateful to the other noble Lords who have signed my Amendment 121A, but I also point out to the House that it has the support of the Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza. Amendment 121A would tighten up the conditions that will give the local authority the ability to withhold consent for a child to be electively home-educated; in contrast, as we heard, the government amendment would be limited to a child who had been on a child protection register within the last five years. My amendment would include children who have ever been subject to care proceedings, whether or not they resulted in a care order.
As my noble friend Lady Spielman said—or perhaps it was the noble Lord, Lord Meston, or both—care proceedings are a serious move on the part of the state. In Sara’s case, two care orders were applied for in her short life; neither was successful. Amendment 121A would also include children who have ever been subject to child protection inquiries or placed on the child protection register. Again, in Sara’s case, she was only on a child protection plan at birth, so the Government’s amendment would have made no difference in her case.
Perhaps most importantly, the government amendments currently include children who are defined as a child in need under Section 17 of the Children Act. The Government have already included within Section 17 those children who are in a special school because of their special educational needs and disabilities, but they have expressly excluded children who under Section 17 are a child in need because of abuse or neglect. The department’s own data recently showed there are almost 30,000 children categorised as children in need who are suffering child sexual abuse and a further 12,000 who are sexually exploited. So, the bar for what is a child in need has moved up and up with the pressures that we have seen on the child protection system, and I really hope that the Minister, when she comes to reply, will address that point, because it makes me anxious, with my experience in child protection. These children are under much less scrutiny than the child who is on a plan. They are the more vulnerable children, and I think they need to be included in this group.
When I met with officials, they argued that the Government’s reforms would mean that all those children who are sexually exploited or sexually abused would now be on a child protection plan, but I would rather err on the side of caution and make sure that we capture them in this.
I entirely accept the point from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, regarding adoption; that was an oversight in the drafting of my amendment. But let us be clear: the consequence is that a child has to go to school; the consequence is not endless involvement of a local authority in a family’s life. The child goes to school—something which the vast majority of children in this country do.
My Amendment 131A has perhaps been slightly misunderstood. It
“would require the local authority to conduct a home visit where a child has ever been subject to care proceedings, named in a child protection plan”—
not, as was suggested, if there have been investigations that might be malicious—
“or is currently classified as a child in need”.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, is right. For some children, home is a safe space, but for too many children, home is the exact opposite, and we need to walk over the threshold on behalf of those children.
I accept there have been concerns about my Amendment 121B, and I would not want to do anything that would put victims of domestic abuse at further risk. I hope the Government can come back with something that is workable there.
Anyone who has worked in child protection will know that the line between the child who dies or is seriously harmed and the child who survives is a very, very fine line; it might come down to the school or the neighbours or the bus driver or somebody noticing something and acting. So, what my amendments aim to do is to cast the net in a proportionate way that would drive professional curiosity on the part of local authority staff but allow us to identify those children who are at risk of suffering neglect or abuse if they are taken out of school and become invisible. I hope the Minister will be able to address those points.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I will focus on the detail of the amendments in this group, rather than on some of the broader arguments made by noble Lords. Both on Second Reading and in Committee, we have talked about home education issues at considerable length.
Lord Crisp (CB)
Is the Minister saying that when a local authority has just granted authority to parents to take responsibility for life for what are difficult children with trauma in their background, fairly soon afterwards you are going to second-guess them about how they should do education? The Minister may say that it should be done softly, but essentially that is what she is saying—that she is going to make them jump through yet another hoop.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that these are children who, almost by definition, will have gone through difficult and traumatic circumstances. Therefore, the opportunity within that five-year period to have the process for ensuring that they would not be better served by staying at school would serve those children well. I was about to say that, of course, those parents will already be well known to the local authority, and we would expect those checks to be relatively quick because the relevant information and relationship with the parents is already built.
On Amendment 121A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I thank the noble Baroness as well as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and others for their constructive engagement last week. They have referenced the meeting they had with my officials on the detail of their amendment; of course, it was also with Steve Crocker, the non-executive board member for the department and former president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, and the DCS in Hampshire. The amendment would seek to extend the requirement to get permission to withdraw a child from school to home-educate them to a much broader group of children, including all children who are or who have ever been the subject of a child protection inquiry or child protection plan; those who are or have ever been the subject of proceedings relating to supervision or care orders; and those who are currently receiving support and services as a child in need under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989.
We tabled our amendment to extend the requirement to children who have recently been discharged from child protection plans because we felt that five years was a reasonable period in which to expect a family to show sustainable change. Extending the timeframe to consider all children previously subject to a child protection inquiry or plan, and including those who have been subject to proceedings or are currently receiving support from children’s social care, risks discouraging families from agreeing to accept support and services early or may lead to them withdrawing from this support, if consent from the local authority is required to home-educate.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester called this amendment a nuanced approach. Well, it is not a nuanced approach because it aims to use this specific consent provision to solve much wider issues within the Bill and goes far beyond, in terms of the breadth of children it would encompass, those included by the Government’s amendment. It is exactly the opposite of what we want to achieve through the Families First Partnership programme, whereby we want to broaden the group that come forward for help at the earliest possible opportunity.
Noble Lords have rightly expressed their concern about the children who fall through the cracks in the system, and that is why we are fixing the system that safeguards and protects children and investing £2.4 billion in rolling out the Families First Partnership programme. It is why we are developing multi-agency child protection teams in every local area and legislating for better information sharing and a stronger role for education and childcare settings in local safeguarding arrangements. These measures are designed to identify and support more quickly children who need help and protection.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, touched on the fact that this amendment would capture every parent whose child has ever been the subject of a child protection inquiry who wishes to remove that child from school. Let us not forget that a Section 47 inquiry is a significant event for a family—an intrusion into family life without consent. I know we all agree that this is the right thing to protect children from harm where it is needed, but last year alone just under 200,000 children aged between five and 15 were the subject of an inquiry. While I recognise that only a small number of these parents will want to home-educate, it would be both a significant undertaking for a local authority and a significant additional intrusion for those parents where concerns were not substantiated and no further action was taken.
On broadening the consent measure to include children where supervision or care proceedings are or have been initiated, once again it is a significant undertaking for the local authority to seek court intervention in family life. In these circumstances, the local authority should and will be assessing the safety and well-being of the children. Most of these children will have been on child protection plans before proceedings are initiated, so they will already be within the consent measure. Where proceedings are historic and there are still safeguarding concerns, these children should be being picked up through existing safeguarding mechanisms such as those already captured by the existing consent requirements. The question we need to ask ourselves is whether this is a proportionate approach. I understand the concern to mitigate risk at every possible occasion, but we also need to recognise that this is not the appropriate tool to use, given that this Bill is about improving the whole of the system much more radically.
Amendment 131A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would require local authorities to visit the child’s home environment for certain groups of children. Amendment 131 already provides sufficient safeguards by allowing local authorities to consider the child’s home and other education settings and to request a visit to meet the child. Local authorities should already be undertaking home visits as part of their regular oversight of children subject to child protection inquiries or plans, children on child in need plans, and those involved in care or supervision proceedings. The statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, is very clear. It is part of their duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children in their area; this would include visiting children who need help, support or protection, and we will also clarify in statutory guidance on the registers that these children should be prioritised for visits at the point of registration.
Amendment 121B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to ensure that the views of all parents of the child are considered as part of the local authority’s decision to grant permission for a child to be removed from school for home education. In most cases, we would expect local authorities to seek the views of all parents when they are considering whether to grant consent. However, there will be situations where doing so would be inappropriate. I think we can imagine what some of those might be. Of course, requiring the local authority to consult all of those with parental responsibility could delay a consent decision in circumstances where, for example, estranged parents are hard to reach. We will make this clear in statutory guidance.
Amendment 122, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, would require a court to confirm the local authority’s assessment that it is in the child’s best interest to receive education by regular attendance at school. We believe that local authorities will be well placed to make these decisions, as they will be aware of the child’s circumstances and can draw on multi-agency expertise, as well as parental views, in their decision-making. Introducing a requirement for court confirmation would add unnecessary delays.
Amendment 123, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to require a local authority to provide a statement of reasons if it refuses to grant permission for a child at a special school to be home-educated. I wholly agree that it is right for reasons to be provided, and we intend to make this clear in statutory guidance, which we will consult on. In that consultation, we will also consider to what extent a local authority’s reasons for a decision should include the costs and benefits to the child of permission being granted or refused.
Amendment 124, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, seeks to ensure that the process by which parents can appeal a consent decision made by a local authority is transparent and fair. The first proposed new subsection in this amendment makes many sensible suggestions but I do not think it is necessary to place this level of detail in the Bill. I wrote to noble Lords earlier this month outlining the department’s intention to provide more in-depth guidance on the appeals process, which will include target timelines and examples of the type of evidence that may be submitted. I am afraid that I do not agree with the second proposed new subsection. The tribunal process can be lengthy and these types of cases do not fall within the current remit of the Local Government Ombudsman. The appeals process proposed in the Bill is uncomplicated, objective and will be the most efficient route for parents to get a final decision.
Amendment 125A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, seeks to amend the provisions of government Amendment 125 to establish a pilot scheme of mandatory meetings. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the intention that lies behind his amendment. The Government’s amendment places a clear requirement on local authorities to record the outcome of these meetings. Should this provision be accepted, statutory guidance will make explicit that the record must include any concerns that parents express about schools, as well as actions taken by the authority in response. As part of the pilot, we intend to gather this information so that we can understand how it is being used and how it might drive improvements across the system—this is a call made by other noble Lords as well—so we can get a better understanding of why, as was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, parents are withdrawing their children from school.
Amendments 164B, 164C and 167A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to give discretion or place limitations on when local authorities may issue preliminary notices or school attendance orders. The department agrees that it is important that local authorities work to foster positive relations with home-educating families, which is why the Bill introduces a support duty. We have tabled an amendment to require local authorities to offer home-educating parents a biannual forum to discuss any concerns or issues. However, if a child is in potentially unsuitable education or education that is not in their best interest, action must be taken without delay.
Amendments 170A and 170B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to place limitations on when a local authority can request a home visit when considering whether a school attendance order should be served. By this stage of the school attendance order process, a local authority will already have used informal inquiries and a preliminary notice to the parent to obtain information about the child’s education. A parent will therefore have had several opportunities to satisfy the local authority that their child is in receipt of a suitable education. Requiring a local authority to obtain a court order to conduct a visit would not be an appropriate use of the court’s time and could prolong the time a child spends receiving an unsuitable education. We will use statutory guidance to help local authorities sensitively conduct these visits and we are developing a training package for local authorities focusing on their new duties.
Amendment 175ZD, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, is unnecessary because Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 is clear that education otherwise than at school is a legitimate choice for parents—incidentally, a point that has been made by the Government throughout the whole of this debate and consideration of the Bill.
Amendment 175ZE, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to require the Secretary of State to issue a code of conduct in respect of attendance. There is already statutory guidance that sets out in detail the roles and responsibilities for all the institutions and persons listed in this amendment in relation to improving school attendance. The department published the Working Together to Improve School Attendance guidance in 2022, following full public consultation, and it was updated less than 18 months ago in August 2024.
This has been a wide-ranging group of amendments, but I hope that I have addressed noble Lords’ concerns. I commend the government amendments, particularly government Amendment 120.
Lord Hampton (CB)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, I am slightly disappointed that she did not comment on something that I would like to hear from her. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for whom I have enormous admiration—particularly as he was very kind about Mossbourne just now—said that there are plenty of schools like the one in episode two of “Adolescence”. It really bugs me that, although “Adolescence” is an extraordinary piece of drama, it is now being taken as a documentary. It is a dystopian view of schools. Will the Minister assure the House that there are not plenty of schools like in episode two of “Adolescence”?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am more than happy to do that. The point we have raised consistently throughout this is that it is right that parents have the ability to home-educate their children, if that is what they choose to do, but the idea that they are forced to do that because the vast majority of our schools are bad is simply wrong. The vast majority of our schools do a very good job for children. That is why the vast majority of children are educated within them and benefit from that.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Young of Cookham) (Con)
The debate is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. Does he wish to respond?
“434B Mandatory local authority meetings prior to withdrawal of child from school(1) The appropriate national authority must, by regulations made before the end of the relevant period, make a scheme (“a pilot scheme”) to provide—(a) that the parent of a child must attend and participate in a meeting with the local authority responsible for the child if the parent intends—(i) that the child should cease to attend the school at which the child is a registered pupil, and(ii) to withdraw the child from school for the purpose of causing the child to receive education otherwise than at a school,(b) that the local authority must ensure that the following matters are discussed with the parent during the meeting—(i) the duty of parents under section 7 and how the parent plans to meet this duty;(ii) the duties of the local authority, including the support duty under section 436G;(iii) the parent’s reasons for considering that the child should receive education otherwise than at school;(iv) any support needs that the child may have and how those needs could be met;(v) the safeguarding and welfare of the child;(vi) anything else relevant to the decision to withdraw the child from school,(c) that the child must attend the meeting unless exceptional circumstances apply,(d) that a representative of the school at which the child is a registered pupil must attend the meeting if the parent consents to the representative’s attendance,(e) that the proprietor of a school must not allow the deletion from the school’s register of the name of the child unless the proprietor receives notice from the local authority that the meeting has taken place in respect of the child, and(f) that the local authority must record the outcome of the meeting or whether the meeting was refused.(2) The “relevant period” is the period of two years beginning with the day on which section 31 of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 comes fully into force.(3) The regulations must also specify—(a) the local authorities in respect of which the pilot scheme will operate, and(b) the period for which the scheme has effect.(4) The number of local authorities specified under subsection (3)(a) must not exceed 30 per cent of all local authorities in England or 30 per cent of all local authorities in Wales as the case may be.(5) The period specified under subsection (3)(b) must not be less than two years and must not exceed five years.(6) The regulations may provide for exemptions from the pilot scheme in respect of descriptions of children as specified in the regulations. (7) The regulations may make provision for, or in connection with, any arrangements that the appropriate national authority considers are required to ensure that the pilot scheme can operate.(8) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (7) includes—(a) provision modifying or amending the pilot scheme for the purpose of ensuring that the scheme can operate in relation to children falling within section 434A;(b) provision modifying or amending section 434A for the purpose of ensuring that the pilot scheme can operate in relation to children falling within that section.(9) Subject to subsection (10), the appropriate national authority may by regulations—(a) make provision to end the pilot scheme;(b) provide that the provisions mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (1) have effect, after the expiry of the pilot scheme, in relation to all local authorities, subject to any exemptions for descriptions of children as specified in the regulations;(c) amend section 434A for the purpose of ensuring that the grant of local authority consent to withdraw a child from school under that section is conditional on the parent of that child attending and participating in a meeting with the local authority responsible for the child, as described in paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (1), subject to any exemptions for descriptions of children as specified in the regulations;(d) make provision for, or in connection with, any arrangements that the appropriate national authority considers are required to ensure that any provision made under paragraphs (a) to (c) can operate.(10) Regulations under subsection (9) may be made only after the pilot scheme has operated for a period of no less than 2 years.(11) Before making any regulations under this section, the appropriate national authority must consult such persons as the appropriate national authority considers appropriate.(12) In this section “appropriate national authority” means—(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State;(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers.(13) If a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section would, apart from this subsection, be treated for the purposes of the standing orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, it is to proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow regulations to make pilot schemes requiring parents who wish to withdraw their children from school to attend mandatory meetings with the local authority. Regulations may also extend the provisions to all local authorities, following the end of the pilot scheme and a consultation.
“(2) In section 569(2A) of the Education Act 1996, after “section” insert “434B”.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my other amendment of clause 31, page 57, line 2 and will ensure that regulations made under the provision inserted by that amendment will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Minister always says warm and wise words—well, some of the time.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify the intention that section 436B(5)(b)(ii) of the Education Act 1996, as inserted by clause 32, refers to a comparator child in full-time education.
“(8) Before the end of the period of 15 days beginning with the day on which the local authority registers a child under this section, the local authority—(a) must consider where the child lives, and(b) may request the child's parent to allow the local authority to visit the child inside any of the homes in which the child lives.(9) If a request under subsection (8)(b) is refused by the person to whom it is made, the local authority must consider that to be a relevant factor in determining whether to serve a preliminary notice under section 436H.(10) Before the end of the period of 15 days beginning with the day on which the local authority includes in the register the information mentioned in section 436C(1)(e) in respect of a child, the local authority must consider the settings where the child is being educated that the local authority knows about.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide a new duty for local authorities to consider the child’s home and education settings, and a power to request a home visit, soon after registration under section 436B (as inserted by clause 32).
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I am not going to divide the House on Amendment 131A, although I feel I ought to, but I would be grateful if the Minister could agree to write to me, and put a copy in the Library, explaining what the purpose of Amendment 131 is, because my amendment would have brought absolute clarity as to which children and which homes would receive a home visit. She said that children to whom Section 47 applied would get a home visit anyway, but the implication was that those other groups of children would not. It would be helpful to know how the Government are planning to give clarity to local authorities. At a high level, what will the guidance say? Are there powers that the Government are taking within the Bill that would allow them to introduce something like my amendment in future if it appeared to be necessary? If she could commit to write, I would be very grateful.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am happy to commit to write and respond to those questions.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the register also contains the previous address of the child where they have lived at their current address for less than 12 months.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, my amendments in this group pull in two slightly different directions. If the Minister and her officials are confused, I apologise, but I will try to explain why.
The main thrust of my amendments, as the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Hacking, both said, is to try to simplify the amount of specific detail required to be held on the register in future. I too very much welcome the Government’s decision to simplify a lot of the information that was in the original draft of the Bill and to leave a bit more room for professional curiosity on the part of the home education team in the local authority. My Amendments 135A, 135B and 146A all point in this direction and give the Government different options—a pick-and-mix menu to achieve this end. Amendment 146B would make it clear that a local authority can request further information where it believes that a child might not be receiving a suitable education or that their welfare may be at risk.
In the other direction is my Amendment 143B— I hope the Minister will be able to address this specifically when she sums up—which would establish a duty to record information relating to care proceedings. I think that is missing from the current list, but the Minister will tell me whether I am right or wrong on that. This would include information relating not just to the child but to their siblings. We are all aware of cases where siblings or half-siblings are in care proceedings, perhaps if they are babies or under five, but an older child might not be. It feels highly relevant, if a child is going to be taken out of school, that the local authority has that level of concern about other children in the family. I hope the Minister feels able to accept that and perhaps bring back a government amendment at Third Reading.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, as noble Lords have noted, the amendments in this group are all about how we reduce the burden on parents of providing information for children not in school registers while maintaining the purpose of those registers. As I said in the previous group, I have taken seriously noble Lords’ views that the provisions as drafted in the Bill were too onerous for parents. At the same time, it is important to remember that the system we are proposing is still incredibly light-touch relative to what is mandated in many other countries.
I turn to the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Hacking—134A, 139, 140 and 141—and Amendments 135A and 135B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. These would remove certain information requirements or replace them with more limited alternatives. It is essential that local authorities have the information they need to assess whether a child’s education is suitable and full-time. I fully appreciate the intention behind these amendments, but reducing the scope of information would, in practice, make those assessments significantly harder. It is also vital that safeguarding information and other relevant information on registers be recorded consistently. Recent safeguarding and serious case reviews have shown how often opportunities to identify children suffering or at risk of significant harm are missed when information is fragmented or incomplete.
However, I hope I can provide some reassurance to my noble friend Lord Hacking about access for parents in the sort of circumstances he identified. There are no powers for parents to access information on their children. We have thought this through very carefully, particularly from the perspective of victims of domestic abuse and other forms of abuse. For example, we have considered whether the estranged parent could make a subject access request to acquire information. Local authorities are strictly required to have clear and well-defined processes to help staff handle such requests safely and lawfully. We do not believe, therefore, that the fear my noble friend outlined, which is a quite understandable fear, could legally exist. I hope that provides some reassurance.
On the detail, Amendments 134A and 135A would require only the names and home addresses of the parents directly providing the education. Yet, as I said in Committee, Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 places the duty of securing a suitable education on all parents. If these amendments were accepted, we could face situations where no parent is recorded at all, making it harder for local authorities to identify and support children missing education.
Amendment 135A would also limit information for inclusion to the primary type of education, while Amendment 139 would require information on other providers only where they deliver the child’s principal education. In practice, this would not work because where education is from multiple sources, for example a parent and a tutor, there is no clear way of determining which is primary.
Amendments 135B, 140 and 141 would remove the requirement to record time spent in education and information concerning education received from those other than the parents. Yet this information may be precisely what allows local authorities to understand a child’s overall educational picture. If, for instance, a child spends substantial time with a provider offering a very narrow curriculum, the authority must check that they are receiving a balanced education elsewhere as a core part of assessing suitability.
Amendment 146B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, alongside Amendment 135A, seeks to clarify when further information may be requested. I appreciate the noble Baroness’s intention, but it would mean that the local authority may request further information only where it has reasonable cause to believe that a child may not be receiving a suitable education or their welfare may be at risk. Yet the purpose of the registers is to cover all children not in school and gather the information that enables authorities to form those very judgments. The information being sought might be exactly the information needed to make that judgment.
At this point I will respond to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on the group before last. On the point about annual reports, the high-level information required for registers is not intended to replace the more detailed informal inquiries that local authorities undertake—what the noble Lord refers to as the annual reporting system—to understand whether a child is receiving a suitable education. Should the amendment from the previous group be accepted, regulations could outline how the updates could be requested and statutory guidance would set out how these processes should align. On the point about whether parents ignore the annual request for meetings if the meeting has already happened, we will expect local authorities to adapt their systems in line with the new legislation. If there has recently been a meeting and the local authority is satisfied that the education is suitable, we would not expect it to request another soon afterwards. We will put this into statutory guidance.
Amendments 153A and 155A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would limit requests from local authorities for information, meetings or home visits, and prevent non-compliance being used as evidence of unsuitable education. The extensive package of government amendments to reduce the frequency of updates required from parents, which I will come to shortly, will address many of the noble Lord’s concerns. His amendments would also restrict home visits and meetings, when some parents welcome them as the easiest way to provide information. The suggestion that deregistration from school could be blocked by requiring a meeting is also misplaced. Children covered by new Sections 436B to 436G are already out of school and, if home-educated, already off the school roll. The amendments would give the Secretary of State new powers to penalise local authorities for breaching these limits. However, local authorities must already follow the law. The Education Act 1996 gives the Secretary of State sufficient powers to intervene when a local authority fails to comply.
Amendment 148E, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would prevent information on the registers being used to judge whether a child is at risk of harm or not receiving a suitable education. But local authorities must be able to use information on registers to make those assessments. Where information on registers indicates that a child may not be suitably educated or that safeguarding concerns exist and any informal inquiries have not resolved matters, authorities have a duty to act.
Amendment 146A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would prevent the Government prescribing additional categories of information for recording in future, even where necessary to improve understanding of this cohort, inform local and national policy, or better target support, including, for example, information on exam entries or outcomes for home-educated children, in which many noble Lords have expressed interest. Indeed, the noble Baroness’s own Amendment 143B shows the value of being able to add future categories, namely the details of care and supervision order applications, where we can see the logic of her argument. We would be happy to consider prescribing this information when developing regulations, and we will publicly consult on this.
Amendments 148A, 148B and 148D tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, concern the protection and retention of data on the registers. I appreciate the concern for the protection of children’s data, which of course I share, but these amendments are unnecessary. The registers will be required to comply with all applicable data protection legislation, which requires data not to be kept longer than necessary. Furthermore, entries on registers will be deleted once a child ceases to be within scope.
Amendment 174A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would remove Clause 34. Clause 34 enables information to be disclosed when required or authorised by children not in school measures without it breaching any obligation of confidence. This is important for local authorities to fulfil their duties, including sharing information where it promotes or safeguards a child’s education or welfare. The department continues to engage with the Information Commissioner’s Office to identify and mitigate any data-sharing risks.
Amendments 172A and 247A by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would require the National Cyber Security Centre to certify and test the security arrangements for registers before implementation. As I said in Committee, this is unnecessary. Local authorities are already expected to comply with cyber-security standards, which are an integral part of their wider data protection obligations. There will also not be a single national register but over 150 local registers across England and Wales. The National Cyber Security Centre’s role is advisory, not regulatory, so not only would requiring it to test and certify each register inappropriately widen its remit but it would be a colossal resource demand and unnecessarily delay implementation of these much-needed registers.
Amendment 161D, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would require local authorities to give written reasons for all decisions relating to the registers and to offer parents opportunities to correct inaccuracies. Local authorities will exercise discretion across a range of decisions, from adding information to the registers to seeking further details from education providers or determining what support to offer. It would be inappropriate to require written reasons in every case, particularly where safeguarding is involved. However, for support duty decisions we will make it clear in statutory guidance that written reasons should be provided. As for correcting factual errors, UK GDPR already gives parents the right to have inaccurate data rectified.
“(d) an estimate of the overall total amount of time that the child spends receiving education from parents of the child;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require a parent to provide an estimate of the overall amount of time, rather than the actual amount of time, that the child spends receiving education from their parents, for the purposes of the register of children not in school.
“(e) if a particular provider other than the child’s parent is providing education to the child for more than the prescribed amount of time—(i) the name and address of the provider;(ii) a description of the type of provider that it is;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and my amendment of clause 32 at page 60, line 33 would provide that the requirement to provide detailed information about education providers other than a parent will only apply if a provider is providing education that exceeds an amount of time specified in regulations.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require a parent to provide an estimate of the total amount of time, rather than the actual amount of time, that the child spends receiving education from a provider, for the purposes of the register of children not in school.
“(la) whether the local authority exercised any of its functions under section 436B(8), (9) or (10), 436H(7A), (7B) or 436I(3) in relation to the child and the outcomes of any consideration of home and education settings or home visits conducted under those provisions;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow the outcomes of any home visits or consideration of the child’s home and education settings to be prescribed as information that may be included in the register of children not in school.
“(e) how amounts of time and estimates of amounts of time are to be calculated and recorded for the purposes of subsection (1)(d), (da) and (e)(iv);”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my other amendments of clause 32 at page 58, lines 20, 21, 32 and 33 and would ensure that regulations made under section 436C(4) of the Education Act 1996 (inserted by clause 32) can also make provision about how time estimates are to be calculated.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my other amendment of clause 32 at page 61, line 5 and would ensure that section 436D(2)(b) only applies to information required to be included in the register by section 436C(1)(a) to (c).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of clause 32 at page 61, line 39.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that a local authority may ask an education provider to confirm whether they are providing out-of-school education for children whether or not those children live in the authority’s area.
“(c) information about access to examinations for the General Certificate of Secondary Education.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would add information about access to GCSE exams to the list of examples of matters about which a local authority can provide information, if such information is requested by the parent of a child registered under section 436B (as inserted by clause 32).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my second amendment of clause 32 at page 64, line 36 and would set out the circumstances in which the new duties would not apply.
“(3) In section 569(2A)—(a) after “section” insert “436B(6), 436C(1)(e), 436C(2), 436C(4), 436E(1)(a), 436E(7), 436E(9), 436F(1), 436F(2),”;(b) after “550ZC(7)” insert “, or under paragraph 5 of Schedule 31A”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that all regulations made by the Secretary of State under the listed provisions of the Education Act 1996 as inserted by clause 32 relating to the registration of children not in school will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow a local authority to serve a preliminary notice for a school attendance order where the local authority has taken action under section 47(8) of the Children Act 1989 during the period of 5 years prior to the date on which the notice is to be served.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would also cover action taken by the local authority under section 47(8) of the Children Act 1989 during the period of 5 years prior to the date on which the school attendance order would be made.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would also cover action taken by the local authority under section 47(8) of the Children Act 1989 during the period of 5 years prior to the date on which the school attendance order was made.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 34, page 81, line 39.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that local authorities have regard to guidance when exercising functions relating to the withdrawal of children from school.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I too thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for tabling this amendment again. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, we had a fervent debate in Committee, where the case was made for the precious nature of Haredi traditions but also for the importance of avoiding a two-tier system of education; and that the reality for some young men was that they felt their experience at a yeshiva had been deeply damaging.
My noble friend Lord Lucas suggested that the department pick a time period to resolve these issues; that seems a very constructive suggestion. It feels as though this amendment has the elements in it for a way through this very long-running debate, given that it includes a commitment both to suitable out-of-school education and to safeguarding issues being addressed. I acknowledge the deep concerns that were expressed in Committee and I hope very much that the Minister finds a way through this, not least for the Haredi community, who are obviously deeply anxious about it.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As other noble Lords have done, I first thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for bringing forward Amendment 175A. Of course, this amendment was previously tabled in Committee and debated extensively then. For reasons of time, I will not repeat that debate.
However, I agree with my noble friend Lady Morris that support for this clause is absolutely not a failure to recognise the significance of faith-based education across a range of faiths in our country. My noble friend is right, and she has championed and supported this, even in the face of opposition. I assure the Haredi community that it is neither a denigration of their faith nor of the way in which they wish to express it in a plural England, where I very much hope they feel able to be, and remain, a full part of our community.
It may assist the House if I clarify the purpose and effect of Clause 37 and the Government’s general approach in this area. In so doing, I will attempt to answer the questions raised by the right reverend Prelate. Clause 37 starts from the position that, if a setting is providing full-time education to children of compulsory school age, it should be regulated and subject to oversight. I trust that there is broad support across the House for this principle. Clause 37 therefore extends to more settings the regulatory regime found in Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Education and Skills Act 2008.
I reiterate that it is categorically not the Government’s intention to close down yeshivas. This is the same ready-made, flexible and effective system of regulation that independent schools have been able to operate within for many years, including those with a primary faith ethos. Let me be clear: there is nothing in this clause that, in itself, requires impacted settings to become schools or to operate identically to other settings already regulated by this regime. What the clause does do, in broad terms, is subject impacted full-time settings to a regime of registration and the need to comply with prescribed standards and inspection against those standards. While people running educational settings should already have an idea of whether they provide a full-time education, based on an ordinary understanding of those words, the Government will produce guidance so that it is clear whether a setting is being brought into regulation by this measure.
In addition, the right reverend Prelate asked for confirmation that the regulatory regime found in the 2008 Act permits different standards to be prescribed for different types of setting. I can confirm that this is the case and that Ministers have not yet decided which standards would be prescribed. Any decision will only follow extensive engagement and consultation. This is likely to take a minimum of several months and will take into account all relevant views, including those concerning the appropriateness of teaching relationships and sex education in regulated settings.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my amendment to clause 40 at page 99, line 12, would require an application to register an independent educational institution to include just the address and not the description of buildings where students are routinely provided with education, meals or accommodation.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We have moved slightly faster than I expected us to move, which I am sure is greatly welcomed by most Members of your Lordships’ House. I begin with the group of amendments concerning Clause 40. Government Amendments 176 to 183 and 185 principally concern the Bill’s provisions on the material change regime, which governs the type of change that independent schools require Secretary of State approval to make.
When the Bill was first published, concern was raised that minor or secondary changes, such as bike sheds or classroom conversions, would be unnecessarily captured if changes of buildings at a school’s already registered address were treated as material changes. The Government have listened to these concerns and the amendments now make clear that building changes at a school’s registered address do not require material change approval. Importantly, the same principle applies to any additional addresses that the department registers after approving a change of building. Further changes of building at these addresses will not be treated as material changes.
These amendments take a proportionate approach. They reflect that a registered school making use of new or unfamiliar addresses may be placing pupils at higher risk of harm. Under these changes, the focus will be on any addresses beyond the school’s registered address and any additional addresses registered following an approved change of buildings where there is no prior assurance that standards are met. In addition, these amendments clarify that only changes to how an institution providing special education is specially organised constitute a material change and require ministerial approval. Actions taken solely to meet an individual pupil’s needs do not constitute a material change.
The Government have worked closely with interested parties to ensure that the original policy intent is properly captured. It is right that, where independent schools make changes to their operations that may place children at risk of harm, the Secretary of State is made aware of that and is given assurance that these changes are safe. That is an important principle, and these amendments are a sensible balancing act between strengthening oversight and avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy.
I turn to Amendment 184. In Committee there was broad support for Clause 43, which aims to strengthen Ofsted’s powers to investigate suspected illegal, unregistered independent schools and registered schools operating unlawfully. These additional powers have been drawn with an awareness that the powers currently available to Ofsted in Section 97 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 are inadequate to identify suspected criminal behaviour. Therefore, when drawing up Clause 43, the Government listened closely to the chief inspector to make sure that these powers can be put into operation.
The amendment is aimed at giving greater confidence to the chief inspector when operating under these new powers. It is the Government’s experience that demonstrating offences in this space relies heavily on gathering documentary evidence. Some of that evidence may, under ordinary circumstances, be considered confidential or otherwise fall within existing legislative restrictions. The amendment therefore facilitates the chief inspector’s access to such information when acting under the authority of a warrant, where that is relevant to deciding whether a relevant offence is being or has been committed. It further ensures that independent judicial oversight, in the form of a warrant, is sought before such documents are inspected, copied or, when necessary, seized in reliance on these powers. This approach strikes the right balance between protecting the rights of the individual and ensuring that the chief inspector is able to properly inspect potentially dangerous settings. I beg to move.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I have a quick question for the Minister on Amendment 184, which she described towards the end of her speech. I agree with the purpose of this and most of the details, but I am not quite sure what is meant by “excluded material” or “special procedure material”. Is that anything to do with data protection? If it is an unregistered school, would the inspector be able to go in and seize, copy or have access to a register or pupil progress file without having to go and get a warrant? If they gain access and then have to go and get a warrant before they can see the register or the pupil progress information, they are not going to be able to do their job effectively—but that hangs on what is meant by “special procedure material” and “excluded material”. Does that include things such as school registers?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for listening to the concerns that we raised on this side, both in the other place and in your Lordships’ House, about the scope of Clause 40. We feel that it is much improved and are grateful to the Government for listening.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Perhaps I could come back to my noble friend Lady Morris on the details of that particular question; I am sorry that I cannot respond to it now.
I welcome the welcome provided to the Government’s amendments in this group. I also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that we have had extensive discussions with Ofsted about the provisions we are proposing here to make sure they enable Ofsted to do what this Bill is strengthening its ability to do.
Lord Storey (LD)
When the Minister gets back to her noble friend, could she also copy us in with that information? It would be quite useful to understand as well.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I will, as I think is normal when I write to noble Lords about issues that have come up in the debates, copy in anybody that fancies it and probably place a copy in the Library as well for good measure.
“(3ZA) For the purposes of subsection (3)(ea)—(a) “building” means any—(i) building,(ii) part of a building,(iii) permanent outdoor structure, or(iv) part of a permanent outdoor structure,which is wholly or mainly enclosed;(b) a building is made available “for student use” by an institution if students at the institution are routinely present in the building—(i) to be provided with meals or accommodation by the institution, or(ii) to be provided with education by the institution and, while the education is being provided, the building is controlled by the institution.”Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to clause 40 at page 99, line 8.
“(a) material that is excluded material within the meaning of section 11(1)(a) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984;(b) material that is special procedure material within the meaning of section 14(2) of that Act.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would grant the Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills power to seize, inspect or take copies of certain documents for the purpose of investigating offences under the Education and Skills Act 2008.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 45, page 111, lines 3 to 8.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments concerns three distinct areas, which I will take in turn. Amendments 190 and 191 concern the jurisdiction of the Teaching Regulation Agency. Amendment 190 would remove the ability of the TRA to investigate alleged misconduct that occurred before an individual began their teaching career.
I understand the concern here may also be that Clause 46 permits the TRA to investigate those who at any time have been employed or engaged in teaching work and hold those responsible for their conduct at any time in their life. Given that this includes me, I can wholly understand noble Lords’ concerns.
At present, the teacher misconduct regime limits the TRA’s jurisdiction only to those who are currently employed or engaged in teaching work, or who were so employed or engaged when the referral was made. There are problems with this—it cannot be right. Clause 46 addresses this by extending the TRA’s jurisdiction to those who have at any time been employed or engaged in teaching work. Noble Lords can imagine that there could be times when somebody has very recently resigned, possibly with the idea of avoiding a referral to come, and is not able to be investigated. So there are circumstances where it would be appropriate to change the ability of the TRA to investigate.
Given what noble Lords have said today, despite the assurances that my honourable friend Georgia Gould was able to provide to noble Lords during the meeting they held with her, I can understand noble Lords’ concerns. Therefore, the department is not in the position of wanting to implement Clause 46 without having undertaken considerable further consultation, having considered the points that noble Lords have raised. I hope I can give that assurance this evening, and I will find a way to come back to noble Lords with how we intend to do that and some of the safeguards around the sorts of issues that noble Lords have identified this evening.
While Amendment 190 seeks to narrow the TRA’s jurisdiction, Amendment 191, as the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, says, seeks to extend the TRA’s jurisdiction. I understand the concern here that holders of iQTS may work in a school in England but previously have committed misconduct in a foreign country and that, as such, the TRA’s jurisdiction should be expanded to cover all holders of iQTS.
There are problems with this amendment, which have been outlined in the correspondence we have had with my noble friend Lord Knight. I thank him, and the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, for the approach they are taking to what is a clearly worrying problem. We would not want there to be a limit on restricting the ability of those who have committed the types of behaviours the noble Baroness has outlined to work in schools in the UK. There have been some important developments in the ability of both international and UK schools to check a teacher’s record. Once again, noble Lords have made a strong case, and while we cannot accept Amendment 191 for the technical reasons that were outlined in the correspondence, I undertake to continue discussions with the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, my noble friend Lord Knight and the Safeguarding Alliance to try and find a way through, because I recognise that there is an issue here.
I turn to the proposed new clause in Amendment 191A of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, on opening up the right to accompaniment for school staff at disciplinary and grievance hearings. While I thank him and other noble Lords for their thoughts on this matter, I do not believe that this amendment is necessary. This issue, as others have said, was debated at some length during passage of the Employment Rights Bill. Following Third Reading, my noble friend Lord Collins set out the Government’s commitment to review in its entirety the functioning of Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999, which includes provisions on who can be a companion and the right to be accompanied. As part of the review, we will engage with relevant and interested stakeholders and following its conclusion, we will publish our findings in Parliament. This House accepted the Government’s concession on this matter, and the amendment was withdrawn. We will, as the noble Lord asks, consider the implications of the review outcomes for the school workforce. I hope he agrees with the Government that it would be entirely inappropriate for the Department for Education to act unilaterally on this matter for school staff until the full review has taken place and reported. I hope, therefore, that he will not press his amendment.
Turning to the group of amendments relating to parental complaints and appeals, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Spielman and Lady Barran, for tabling these amendments again. Amendments 223, 224, and 225 would, respectively, allow parents and carers of children in maintained schools, independent schools including academies, and non-maintained special schools to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. Amendment 226 would allow for regulations to amend secondary legislation on the rules and procedures of the First-tier Tribunal. Amendment 243D seeks to introduce a central complaints system to handle school-related complaints in England, and for these complaints to be held in a central database accessible to the Department for Education and Ofsted.
My noble friend Lady Blake previously gave detail in Committee on the work we are doing to improve the school complaints system. I will not repeat that today, but I confirm that our aim remains to reduce the burden on schools and leaders, while also maintaining parents’ rights to raise concerns and have them properly considered. We will be providing more detail on this in the forthcoming schools White Paper, but on the role of the First-tier Tribunal, we still do not believe that introducing an additional layer of appeal to the general school complaints system is the right way to achieve our aim of reducing the burdens on schools. The First-tier Tribunal is already under significant pressure, and despite the investment of additional administrative and judicial resource, which has ensured the conclusion of more appeals, the rise in demand is nevertheless outstripping the increase in capacity at present. Expanding the remit of the tribunal would only lead to longer delays for families. We do not think it would be appropriate or proportionate to expand the First-tier Tribunal’s role to include general complaints about schools, but we recognise the concerns being raised in general. We are actively looking at how we can strengthen the independent element of the school complaints process, so that, where parents need to escalate their complaint, they are reassured that it is assessed fairly and objectively.
The noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, talked about the work the department has been doing with the charity Parentkind. As she pointed out, we have worked with the charity to develop the Parent Guide to School Complaints, which was published on 20 January. We are also exploring potential digital options for improving the system. This work involves user research and testing with the sector—including with parents, teachers and headteachers—to ensure that we get this right and that it works for everyone involved. This type of work takes time, of course, but I hope this offers assurance to noble Lords that we are considering this as part of our package of reforms that we will set out in the schools White Paper.
I hope I have addressed noble Lords’ concerns in responding to the amendments. I invite them not to press their amendments.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response. On Amendment 190, what I heard her say was that she would undertake not to implement Clause 46 without proper consultation. I urge her to look again with her colleagues at the wording of the clause, because while the Government’s intent is absolutely spot on, it is not what is said in the clause. If there is a way to do more, that would be even better.
I thank the Minister for her responses and for her openness to continue the conversation on Amendment 191. She almost repeated my noble friend’s words about simplification in the schools White Paper, so we look forward to seeing Amendment 243D back in new, official, government form. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 190.
“(1) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that the proprietor of an Academy has breached a duty imposed by Academy arrangements, the Secretary of State may give the proprietor such directions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate to secure the proper performance of the duty.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment limits the Secretary of State’s power to direct the proprietor of an Academy to cases where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the proprietor has already breached a duty imposed by Academy arrangements.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, government amendments 192 and 193 would strengthen accountability in the academy sector and introduce trust-level inspection to ensure high standards across all trusts. Together, they respond to discussion and points raised in Committee and deliver a proportionate, effective framework for intervention and improvement.
Amendment 192 will narrow the scope of Clause 50, so that the Secretary of State may issue directions only where an academy proprietor has breached a duty imposed by its funding agreements. As stated in Committee, Clause 50 is an important lever for improving accountability in the academy sector. However, we have listened carefully to the concerns raised in this House and the other place about the breadth of the original clause, and we have acted to respond to those concerns and provide clarity. In particular, the amendment removes the anticipatory element of the power and confines its use to cases of actual breach, rather than where a breach is considered likely.
We want the use of directions to be clear, direct and proportionate. This government amendment will provide reassurance without weakening accountability, while maintaining the ability to act swiftly where standards are at risk. Academy trustees are also charity trustees, and we will engage with the Charity Commission, where appropriate, under our Memorandum of Understanding, prior to issuing a direction.
Government Amendment 193 will introduce Ofsted inspections of academy trusts and close a significant accountability gap. We have heard in debates the central role academy trusts play in our education system. Yet accountability has not kept pace with growth, despite decisions at trust level potentially having wide-reaching impacts on the quality of education and support that children receive in academies.
Inspection will provide independent, expert assessment of a trust’s strengths and areas for improvement, supporting a self-improving system and identifying where intervention is needed. This delivers on the manifesto commitment and responds to calls made across the House in Committee.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, like others I really regret that we are debating these amendments so late, because they are very important. I will try to get to my key points.
I thank the Minister for Amendment 192 in relation to Clause 50; this addresses some of the concerns that we raised about its scope in Committee and again in the other place. The main substance of this group, as we have heard, is the lengthy, prize-winning Amendment 193, which would allow the Government to introduce mass inspection. We debated this in Committee. It is curious that the Bill has gone through all stages in the other place and only now are we seeing this on Report. Some of the gaps that it reveals are highlighted in the amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and in my Amendments 193D and 193E. We can see that in the breadth of drafting of this amendment, with so much left to secondary legislation giving Secretary of State extremely broad powers—which suggested to me that it was an amendment that was drafted in haste rather than one that was on the shelf. Officials kindly invited me in to talk about the amendment before Christmas, and they argued the case for giving the Secretary of State maximum flexibility. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, said on an earlier group, we have talked about this ad nauseam, and the Government have acted to correct some of it, but this new clause goes in the wrong direction in relation to those powers.
If we think back to the introduction of the new school inspection regime, we see that there was a huge consultation and piloting of the approach, and now we are seeing it rolled out. All my Amendment 193D asks is that we mirror that and do exactly the same. I have suggested a focus in terms of the pilot, which would be to look at MATs that have groups of schools in the following categories. There would be one category where they are significantly underperforming and where there might be a case for intervention; and another would be where they would like to grow and take on other schools—quite rightly, the department would want reassurance that they had the skills to do that well. And then there would be a universal group—at this hour of the night, I cannot think of any other description—to see whether there is a case, at this point, for universal MAT inspection alongside school inspection. In a perfect world, one would have designed a new school inspection regime and a MAT inspection regime together to avoid some of the duplication to which other noble Lords have pointed.
When the Minister sums up, I would be grateful to know whether she can confirm that there is not a plan to inspect single academy trusts, and if there is, what the point of that would be, and that the Government plan to reawaken—or whatever you do to dormant legislation—the inspection of local authorities with regard to that school improvement function. If the Government want to look at school groupings, they should look at all school groupings rather than just one type.
I turn to my Amendment 194, and I thank my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes for her support for it. I did an interview with Schools Week not so long ago—which probably only my children have read, or, in fact, not even my children have read. They asked me what element of the Bill I was most worried about, and I said that it was this clause, which will delay intervention in schools that Ofsted has found unable to meet the new standards and intervention is required.
When we debated this in Committee, the Minister talked about the length of time for intervention, but she knows that the very long cases—some of the same cases are probably still running—typically reflect one of two things, or possibly both. One is where you have rural schools in very remote areas, where there is no other school or trust nearby that could take on and support the school adequately. The second is where significant funding is required from the department, particularly in relation to buildings or to bridge budget deficits if the school role has fallen significantly, and a lot of arm wrestling goes on, which takes time.
The new RISE teams will not be able to address either type of case any faster than the previous system. My amendment would avoid delay and judicial review, and, most importantly, it would make sure that children were back in high performing schools as quickly as possible. I also agree completely with what my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes said about Amendment 197. With that, rather than having to test the opinion of the House, I hope that the Minister will come back with more positive and constructive responses.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, despite the lateness of the hour, we have had a good discussion on the issues raised in group 10.
I turn to the amendments that have been discussed during this debate. I will start with Amendments 193A and 193B, tabled in the names of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and Amendment 193C, tabled by the right reverend Prelate. These relate to the inspection of trusts, including academies that have been designated
“as having a religious character”.
Amendments 193A and 193B propose additional requirements for Ofsted to share trust inspection reports—what the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend described as “important communication issues”. I recognise the importance of both informing the relevant religious authorities about trust-level inspections and ensuring robust oversight of trust leaders in relation to developing and maintaining the religious character of faith-based settings.
On Amendment 193A, I hope that I can provide some reassurance to the right reverend Prelate that there is already a duty on Ofsted to inform religious authorities in advance of a routine trust inspection. Our provisions already include a duty for Ofsted to share reports of routine inspections with the trust, and the Secretary of State has a power to share them with persons it deems appropriate. Ofsted has confirmed that it will always deem a religious authority that it has already informed about an inspection taking place as an appropriate person to receive a report. I can therefore assure noble Lords that religious authorities will always be sent the report by Ofsted.
On Amendment 193B, as religious authorities will always receive a full trust inspection report setting out that a trust is not performing to an acceptable standard, they do not need to be separately notified about a poor inspection outcome. I therefore hope that noble Lords recognise that Amendments 193A and 193B are not necessary.
Turning to Amendment 193C, the current framework for inspecting denominational education and worship is already a complex mixture of statutory and non-statutory provisions. Moving directly to a statutory framework for academy trusts at this stage risks adding further complexity to that element of the inspection. It is therefore important that we take the time necessary to develop any future approach carefully so that trust-level inspection of denominational matters aligns with existing arrangements of this nature for individual settings, and functions coherently with the wider inspection system.
As the right reverend Prelate has identified, officials have had discussions with officers from the Catholic Education Service and the Church of England Education Office. We are committed to working with the churches and other faiths to developing a non-statutory framework as an initial and constructive step, ahead of considering opportunities for potential legislation in the future. That work will include pilots, which have been developed with faith bodies and trusts to pilot inspection of collective worship and denominational education trusts with faith schools.
“Inspection of Academy proprietors(1) In Part 8 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (Inspections), after Chapter 2, insert—“Chapter 2AInspection of Academy proprietorsInspection
122A Duty to inspect Academy proprietors at specified intervals(1) The Chief Inspector must— (a) conduct inspections of every Academy proprietor at such intervals as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State, and(b) prepare a written report on completion of each inspection.(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that subsection (1) does not apply in relation to specified categories of Academy proprietor in specified circumstances.(3) An Academy proprietor in relation to which subsection (1) does not apply by virtue of regulations under subsection (2) is an “exempt proprietor”.(4) When conducting an inspection under this section, the Chief Inspector must have regard to any views about the matters listed in section 122B(2) which are expressed to the Chief Inspector by—(a) such persons as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State;(b) such other persons as the Chief Inspector considers appropriate.(5) Subsection (1) has effect subject to subsection 122E.(6) An inspection which is required under this section must not extend to—(a) denominational education provided at an Academy which has been designated as having a religious character, or which is to be treated as having been so designated by virtue of section 6(8) of the Academies Act 2010, or(b) the content of collective worship at such an Academy.122B Report of section 122A inspection(1) It is the general duty of the Chief Inspector, when conducting an inspection under section 122A, to report on the quality and effectiveness of the Academy proprietor’s leadership, management and governance in connection with its role as an Academy proprietor.(2) The Chief Inspector’s report must (in particular) cover—(a) the quality and effectiveness of any activities undertaken by the Academy proprietor to secure the provision of a quality education to registered pupils and students of its Academies;(b) the quality and effectiveness of the Academy proprietor’s governance and executive leadership;(c) the quality and effectiveness of any activities undertaken by the Academy proprietor to promote the wellbeing of children and young persons;(d) the quality and effectiveness of any activities undertaken by the Academy proprietor to secure improvements in its Academies;(e) the quality and effectiveness of the Academy proprietor’s management of its resources;(f) such other matters as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(3) The Chief Inspector must send a copy of a report under section 122A(1)(b) to—(a) the Academy proprietor, and(b) the Secretary of State.(4) The Academy proprietor must—(a) make a copy of any report sent to it under subsection (3) available for inspection by members of the public,(b) provide a copy of the report, free of charge, upon request, and (c) take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that every registered parent of a pupil at an Academy school or alternative provision Academy of which the Academy proprietor is the proprietor receives a copy of the report within five working days following receipt of the report by the Academy proprietor.(5) The Chief Inspector may send a copy of the report to such other persons as the Chief Inspector considers appropriate.(6) The Chief Inspector may arrange for the report to be published in such manner as the Chief Inspector considers appropriate.(7) In this section—“child” means a person aged under 18, and references to “children” are to be read accordingly;“wellbeing” , in relation to a child or young person, means their wellbeing so far as relating to the matters mentioned in section 10(2) of the Children Act 2004;“working day” means a day other than a Saturday, a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971;“young person” means any of the persons mentioned in section 10(9) of the Children Act 2004.122C Other inspections(1) The Chief Inspector must inspect and report on any Academy proprietor, or category of Academy proprietor, in connection with its role as an Academy proprietor, if requested to do so by the Secretary of State.(2) The Chief Inspector may inspect and report on any Academy proprietor, in connection with its role as an Academy proprietor, in circumstances where there is no requirement to do so under any other provision of this Chapter.(3) If the Chief Inspector carries out an inspection under subsection (2) in response to a request from the Academy proprietor, the Chief Inspector may charge the Academy proprietor for the cost of the inspection.(4) An inspection which is conducted under this section must not extend to—(a) denominational education provided at an Academy which has been designated as having a religious character, or which is to be treated as having been so designated by virtue of section 6(8) of the Academies Act 2010, or(b) the content of collective worship at such an Academy.(5) The Chief Inspector may arrange for a report under this section to be published in such manner as the Chief Inspector considers appropriate.122D Duty to notify certain persons of inspection(1) Before conducting an inspection under section 122A the Chief Inspector must notify—(a) the Academy proprietor, and(b) any relevant religious body.(2) If the Academy proprietor is notified by the Chief Inspector that the Chief Inspector is proposing to inspect the Academy proprietor under section 122A, the Academy proprietor must take such steps as are reasonably practicable to notify the following persons of the time when the inspection is to take place—(a) the registered parents of registered pupils at any Academy school or alternative provision Academy of which the Academy proprietor is the proprietor;(b) the members of the Academy proprietor (if any). (3) If the Academy proprietor is notified by the Chief Inspector that the Chief Inspector is electing to treat, or is required by the Secretary of State to treat, an inspection under section 122C as if it were an inspection under section 122A as a result of the exercise of a power under section 122E, the Academy proprietor must take such steps as are reasonably practicable to notify the following persons that the inspection is being so treated, and of the time when the inspection is to take place—(a) the registered parents of registered pupils at any Academy school or alternative provision Academy of which the Academy proprietor is the proprietor;(b) the members of the Academy proprietor (if any);(c) any relevant religious body.(4) Any notification given under subsection (2)(a) or (3)(a) must include a statement, in a form approved by the Chief Inspector, inviting the registered parents of registered pupils to inform the Chief Inspector of their views on matters relating to—(a) the Academy at which their child is a registered pupil;(b) the Academy proprietor.122E Power or duty to treat other inspection as section 122A inspection(1) The Chief Inspector may elect for an inspection under section 122C of an Academy proprietor to which section 122A applies to be treated as if it were an inspection under section 122A for the purposes of section 122A(1), section 122B(3) to (6) and section 122H.(2) In the case of an inspection of an exempt proprietor under section 122C, the Chief Inspector may elect to treat the inspection as if it were an inspection under section 122A for the purposes of section 122A(4) and sections 122B and 122H.(3) The Secretary of State may require the Chief Inspector to treat an inspection under section 122C(1) of an Academy proprietor to which section 122A applies as if it were an inspection under section 122A for the purposes of section 122A(1) and (4) and sections 122B and 122H.(4) In the case of an inspection of an exempt proprietor under section 122C(1), the Secretary of State may require the Chief Inspector to treat the inspection as if it were an inspection under section 122A for the purposes of section 122A(4) and sections 122B and 122H.(5) In this section, “exempt proprietor” has the meaning given by section 122A(3).122F Framework for inspections under this Chapter(1) The Chief Inspector must devise—(a) a common set of principles applicable to all inspections conducted under this Chapter, or(b) two or more common sets of principles each of which is applicable to a particular description of such inspections.(2) A set of principles devised under subsection (1)(a) or (b) is referred to in this section as a “framework”.(3) If the Chief Inspector devises two or more frameworks under subsection (1)(b), the Chief Inspector must ensure that, taken together, they cover all inspections conducted under this Chapter.(4) A framework must cover such matters as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(5) The Chief Inspector must publish a framework in such manner as the Chief Inspector considers appropriate. (6) The Chief Inspector may at any time revise a framework.(7) The Chief Inspector must publish a revised framework in such manner as the Chief Inspector considers appropriate.(8) In devising or revising a framework, the Chief Inspector must have regard to guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.Powers of entry etc.
122G Powers of entry etc. for purposes of inspection(1) This section applies to an inspection conducted by the Chief Inspector under this Chapter.(2) The Chief Inspector may, at any reasonable time, enter—(a) any premises of the Academy proprietor;(b) the premises of any Academy of which the Academy proprietor is the proprietor;(c) any other premises on which, by virtue of arrangements made by the Academy proprietor, any pupils or students who are registered at an Academy within paragraph (b) are receiving part of their education from any person (“the provider”);(d) any premises of the provider used in connection with the provision by the provider of that education.(3) The Chief Inspector may, at any reasonable time, inspect, take copies of, or take away such of the following as the Chief Inspector considers relevant to the discharge of the Chief Inspector’s functions under this Chapter—(a) any documents or records kept by the Academy proprietor;(b) any documents or records kept by an Academy of which the Academy proprietor is the proprietor;(c) any documents or records kept by the provider relating to the provision of education by virtue of arrangements made by the Academy proprietor.(4) The power in subsection (3) includes—(a) power to require any person holding or accountable for any such documents or records to produce them, and(b) in relation to any such documents or records kept by means of a computer, power to require them to be produced in a form in which they are legible and can be taken away.(5) In connection with inspecting any such documents or records the Chief Inspector—(a) may obtain access to, and inspect and check the operation of, any computer and associated apparatus or material which the Chief Inspector considers is or has been in use in connection with the documents or records, and(b) may require a person within subsection (6) to afford the Chief Inspector such reasonable assistance as the Chief Inspector requires for that purpose.(6) A person is within this subsection if that person is—(a) the person by whom or on whose behalf the computer is or has been used, or(b) a person having charge of, or otherwise concerned with the operation of, the computer, apparatus or material.(7) A person is guilty of an offence if that person intentionally obstructs the Chief Inspector in the exercise of any function conferred by this Chapter.(8) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale. Academy proprietors not performing to acceptable standard
122H Academy proprietors not performing to acceptable standard(1) Subsections (2) to (4) apply if, on completion of an inspection under section 122A, the Chief Inspector is of the opinion that—(a) the persons responsible for leading, managing and governing the Academy proprietor are failing to lead, manage or govern the Academy proprietor to an acceptable standard, or(b) the Academy proprietor is failing to lead, manage or govern an Academy of which it is the proprietor to an acceptable standard.(2) The Chief Inspector must—(a) send a draft of the report of the inspection to the Academy proprietor, and(b) consider any comments on the draft that are made by the Academy proprietor within such period as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(3) Where, after complying with subsection (2), the Chief Inspector is of the opinion that the case falls within paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1), the Chief Inspector must—(a) without delay, notify the following persons in writing of that opinion—(i) the Secretary of State,(ii) the Academy proprietor, and(b) state that opinion in the report of the inspection.(4) A notification made under subsection (3)(a) must also record—(a) in a case within subsection (1)(a), whether the Chief Inspector is of the opinion that the persons responsible for leading, managing and governing the Academy proprietor are demonstrating the capacity to secure the necessary improvement in the Academy proprietor;(b) in a case within subsection (1)(b), whether the Chief Inspector is of the opinion that the Academy proprietor is demonstrating the capacity to secure the necessary improvement in the Academy.Supplementary
122I Regulations under Chapter 2A(1) Regulations under this Chapter may—(a) make different provision for different purposes;(b) make consequential provision.(2) A statutory instrument containing provision made under any of the following provisions of this Chapter (whether alone or with other provision) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament—(a) section 122A(2);(b) section 122B(2)(f);(c) section 122F(4).(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations made under any other provision of this Chapter is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.122J Interpretation of Chapter 2A(1) In this Chapter—“Academy” means an educational institution to which Academy arrangements relate;“Academy arrangements” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Academies Act 2010;“Academy proprietor” is a person who, in pursuance of Academy arrangements, is the proprietor of an Academy; “Academy school” has the meaning given by section 1A of the Academies Act 2010;“alternative provision Academy” has the meaning given by section 1C of that Act;“denominational education” , in relation to an Academy, means religious education which—(a) is provided in accordance with—(i) any provisions of the trust deed affecting the Academy which relate to the teaching and learning of religious education, or(ii) the tenets of the religion or religious denomination in relation to which the Academy is designated, and(b) is not required by Academy arrangements to be given in accordance with the requirements for agreed syllabuses in section 375(3) of the Education Act 1996;“parent” has the meaning given by section 576 of that Act;“registered” , in relation to the parents of pupils at an Academy school or alternative provision Academy, means shown in the register kept under section 434 of that Act;“registered pupil” , in relation to an Academy school or alternative provision Academy, means a person registered as a pupil in that register;“relevant religious body” , in relation to an Academy, means—(a) in the case of a Church of England Academy or a Roman Catholic Church Academy, the appropriate diocesan authority,(b) in any other case, such body or person as is specified in the Academy arrangements relating to the Academy as representing the religion or religious denomination in relation to which the Academy is designated, andin the case of an Academy designated in relation to more than one religion or religious denomination, references to “the relevant religious body” are to be read as references to all of the relevant religious bodies applicable to the Academy;“trust deed” , in relation to an Academy, includes any instrument (other than the articles or memorandum of association) regulating the constitution of the Academy proprietor or the maintenance, management or conduct of the Academy.(2) In subsection (1)—(a) “Church of England Academy” means an Academy in the Province of Canterbury or York in relation to which the religion or religious denomination specified in the order designating the Academy as having a religious character is “Church of England” and “appropriate diocesan authority”, in relation to such an Academy, means the Diocesan Board of Education for the diocese of the Church of England in which the school is situated, and(b) “Roman Catholic Church Academy” means an Academy in relation to which the religion or religious denomination specified in the order designating the Academy as having a religious character is “Roman Catholic” and “appropriate diocesan authority”, in relation to such an Academy, means the bishop of the Roman Catholic diocese in which the Academy is situated.(3) For the purposes of this Chapter, an Academy has been “designated as having a religious character” if it has been so designated by an order under—(a) section 69(3) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 by virtue of section 124B(2) of that Act, or (b) section 8A(1) of the Academies Act 2010 (16 to 19 academies having religious character), andreferences to the order designating the Academy as having a religious character should be read accordingly.”(2) The Academies Act 2010 is amended in accordance with subsections (3) to (5).(3) After section 2A insert—“2AA Academy agreements: provision about failing Academy proprietors(1) An Academy agreement must include provision allowing the Secretary of State to terminate the agreement if the Chief Inspector has given notice under section 122H(3)(a) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 that—(a) the persons responsible for leading, managing and governing the Academy proprietor are failing to lead, manage or govern the Academy proprietor to an acceptable standard, or(b) the Academy proprietor is failing to lead, manage or govern an Academy of which it is the proprietor to an acceptable standard.(2) The Academy agreement must require the Secretary of State, before terminating the agreement on one of those grounds, to give the proprietor a termination warning notice.(3) A termination warning notice is a notice—(a) requesting that the Academy proprietor respond to the Secretary of State by making representations, or(b) requiring the Academy proprietor—(i) to take specified action by a specified date, and(ii) to respond to the Secretary of State by making representations, or by agreeing to take that action, by a specified date.(4) The Academy agreement must provide that, where a termination warning notice under subsection (3)(b) is given to the Academy proprietor on one of the grounds specified in subsection (1), the power to terminate the agreement is available only if the proprietor has failed to comply with the termination warning notice (whether by failing to take specified action, or to respond, on time).”(4) For section 2C (new academy agreements) substitute—“2C Sections 2A, 2AA and 2B supplementary - new agreements(1) An Academy agreement made on or after 18 April 2016, but before the day on which section [inspection of Academy proprietors] of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 comes fully into force may include further provision about—(a) the procedure for terminating the agreement in accordance with the provision required by section 2A or 2B;(b) the consequences of terminating the agreement in accordance with that provision.(2) An academy agreement made on or after the day on which section [inspection of Academy proprietors] of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 comes fully into force may include further provision about—(a) the procedure for terminating the agreement in accordance with the provision required by section 2A, 2AA or 2B;(b) the consequences of terminating the agreement in accordance with that provision.(3) Section 2D makes provision about agreements entered into before those dates.”(5) For section 2D (old academy agreements) substitute— “2D Sections 2A, 2AA and 2B supplementary - old agreements(1) An old Academy agreement is to be treated as if it included the new termination powers.(2) A pre-section 2AA agreement is to be treated as if it included the section 2AA termination powers.(3) A provision of an old Academy agreement that relates to the procedure for terminating the agreement does not apply to the new termination powers.(4) A provision of a pre-section 2AA agreement that relates to the procedure for terminating the agreement does not apply to the section 2AA termination powers.(5) Subsections (6) and (7) apply where an old Academy agreement or a pre-section 2AA Academy agreement—(a) contains provision about the consequences of terminating the agreement (“relevant provision”), and(b) the relevant provision is expressed in a way that—(i) in the case of an old Academy agreement, is capable of covering termination in accordance with the new termination powers;(ii) in the case of a pre-section 2AA agreement, is capable of covering termination in accordance with the section 2AA termination powers.(6) The relevant provision applies to termination in accordance with—(a) in the case of an old Academy agreement, the new termination powers;(b) in the case of a pre-section 2AA agreement, the section 2AA termination powers.(7) If the relevant provision sets out different consequences depending on whether the agreement is terminated on the ground that the proprietor has breached the Agreement or on other grounds—(a) in the case of an old Academy agreement, termination in accordance with the new termination powers is to be treated as termination on the grounds of breach by the proprietor, and(b) in the case of a pre-section 2AA agreement, termination in accordance with the section 2AA termination powers, is to be treated as termination on the grounds of breach by the proprietor..(8) In this section—“new termination powers” , in relation to an Academy agreement, means the powers to terminate in accordance with the provision required by sections 2A, 2AA and 2B;“old Academy agreement” means an Academy agreement made before 18 April 2016;“pre-section 2AA agreement” means an Academy agreement made on or after the 18 April 2016, but before the day on which section [inspection of Academy proprietors] of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 comes fully into force;“section 2AA termination powers” in relation to an Academy agreement, means the powers to terminate in accordance with the provision required by section 2AA.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would amend Part 8 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 to establish a statutory regime for the inspection by Ofsted of Academy trusts. It would also amend the Academies Act 2010 to permit termination of a trust’s funding agreements in specified circumstances arising from an inspection.
Schools: Music and Dance Scheme
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Keeley
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to review the funding of the Music and Dance Scheme to ensure schools can continue to support talented children from families with lower incomes.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government are committed to revitalising and widening access to arts education, including specialist education for our highest-achieving musicians and dancers. We continue to fund the music and dance scheme, providing bursaries to over 2,000 students. This remains means-tested, targeting support for students from lower-income families. Funding for the academic year 2026-27 onward will be announced in due course, and for the longer term will be subject to the next spending review.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that response. In earlier debates, noble Lords have raised concerns that funding for this vital scheme has been frozen or increased only below inflation since 2011-12, and since 2022 grants have been limited to a one-year settlement. The eight music and dance scheme schools are currently auditioning pupils for entry later this year. The Hammond school in Chester told me that last year 30% of the pupils offered a music and dance scheme-supported place ultimately declined, despite meeting the talent threshold and wanting to attend. Families mainly cited uncertainty about the scheme’s long-term funding, particularly beyond the first year. Talented children from low-income families are not progressing to the specialist training that they need because the financial risk is now too great. Can my noble friend the Minister assure me that this loss of future talent in dance and music can be prevented through more secure funding of the scheme?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is right that since 2010 funding for the music and dance scheme has been largely static. In fact, in some years between 2010 and 2020 it was cut in cash terms. I understand the concerns of the schools that my noble friend is representing here and, of course, the students and the highly talented young people who can benefit from them. I assure my noble friend that the fact that we have not been able to announce funding yet does not mean that we are not committed to the scheme. She will understand that the ability to offer longer periods of certainty is dependent on the spending review and our business planning, but the case has been made strongly by my noble friend and others.
Baroness Bull (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for reiterating the Government’s commitment to the important role of the schools in providing high-quality, world-class training to these elite dancers and musicians. This intensity of training would not be appropriate nor possible in state schools, but the Government recognise the value of music and dance to all pupils. Where dance is concerned, does she agree that delivering improvements in the curriculum will be tricky given that it sits under PE teachers and it is not their specialism? Will she therefore agree to work with the four schools in the music and dance scheme and the extensive network of private schools to develop high-quality modules that could be rolled out nationally, thus deriving more value from the existing investment in the music and dance schools and giving all children an opportunity to benefit from the opportunities in music and dance?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The fact that dance sits under PE means that it is part of the national curriculum up to the age of 16. However, I take the noble Baroness’s point, which I think she has made previously, that having skilled teachers able to deliver that is important. Considering how we can build support from the specialist schools into our state schools is an interesting idea. I will certainly take that back to my colleagues in the department.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, would the Minister not agree that this is something that is done on a small scale, at a very intensive level, for the elite, and that it is thus incredibly difficult for it to be done in the state system, and we are going to have to work with independent schools? Could the Government give a statement that they will make that reality part of their thinking and tell us how it will be done?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord; that is the whole point of the music and dance scheme. It enables 2,000 young people who might not otherwise be able to get, as he says, that private education at the very highest levels, to benefit from it. This Government have maintained investment in that. I am pleased that 18% of the students who benefit from the music and dance scheme get a full bursary; anybody below a family income of £45,000 gets that bursary. That is what enables entry into these schools, and that is what we will certainly attempt to maintain.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an alumna of one of the music and dance schools. I do not doubt the Minister’s commitment to the long-term effectiveness of the music and dance scheme. But is it not the wrong department that we are talking to? The schools say that they need a £36 million uplift for this year, and it is the Treasury that has caused the uplift in costs. They are classed as independent schools, so they are paying VAT on fees. Any uplift that the Department for Education has been able to give has only offset that uplift; it has not increased the viability of the schools. Can the Minister explain what the Treasury will do to ensure the survival of the schools this year as well as in future years?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
This year, as has been the case since 2010, we have maintained the value of the funding for the music and dance scheme, and we have provided an additional £4 million to support parents having to pay for the impacts of VAT on private schools. We have done what was necessary to maintain it this year and, as I said previously, we recognise the significance of this scheme and we will do all we can to support it in the future.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I declare my interest: I might myself have the voice of a frog but I have Chetham’s School of Music, which provides wonderful choristers for my cathedral. Does the Minister agree with me that there seems to be an anomaly? Last week the Government were able to announce significant money over four or five years for the built heritage of this country. However, when it comes to an equally important part of our heritage, our music and drama heritage, we are told that the most we can expect is another year and then, perhaps, later on, something longer. Why can we not have a similar length of settlement for the music and dance schools now as we had for the built heritage last week?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is not right to say that the only support provided to music and the arts is through the music and dance scheme. That deals with a particular issue about how we ensure that, whatever your income, if you are highly talented, you can learn at the very best private schools, including Chetham’s. Alongside that, this Government have taken action on the national curriculum to support the place of arts and music. We are investing in a national centre for arts and music as well. So there is a long-term commitment from this Government to arts and music—somewhat in contrast to the last Government, I have to say.
Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, these specialist music and dance providers, and others, such as the BRIT School and the London Screen Academy, provide opportunities for very gifted young people to enter the talent pipeline so vital to the creative industries, a key growth sector of our economy. Can my noble friend the Minister therefore update the House on the development and investment in the sector skills plan for these industries, which should sit alongside the others already agreed, such as for digital and technology and the life sciences?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point about the economic benefit and growth potential of the creative industries, which is why, as she says, we are developing a specific sector job plan for the creative industries alongside the other seven areas identified in the industrial strategy. I am meeting my ministerial colleagues tomorrow to ensure that progress is being made on those job plans. I know that just earlier this week, on Monday, Skills England and others held a good and productive meeting with the creative industries precisely to take forward that job plan.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Minister will be aware that at least one of the eight specialist schools is at risk of closure within the next 12 to 24 months. Is that really what the Government want to see happen?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
No, it is not. That is why, unlike the noble Baroness’s Government, we have not cut the money for the music and dance scheme. I understand that schools are keen that we provide even more. That is why we will soon announce the funding for 2026-27, and we will ensure that, alongside all the other things we are doing to support arts, music and dance, we find a way to enable the thriving arts and music scene in this country to continue and for young people to benefit from it.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, the music and dance scheme ticks all the boxes for helping underprivileged students—exactly what the Government are in favour of. I do not understand why we are even having this Question. Why is this not sorted already? Further to what the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said, there is a real possibility that some of these schools may close unless they get the £4 million that is required—not a huge amount of money in the scheme of things.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
If every department in government was able to immediately come up with the money for everything that everybody argued was not a great amount of money in the scheme of things, it would be gratifying for those asking for it and bankrupting to the Government. I hope I have made clear today this Government’s commitment to the highly talented individuals who continue to receive support on a means-tested basis so that they can attend these private music and dance schools, as well as the broader investment and curriculum change that we are putting in to ensure that arts and music opportunities for young people, for the creative industries and beyond, are not only supported but reinvigorated by the interest that this Government are taking in them.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Con)
My Lords, I did not intend to speak but I too was greatly moved by the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and I have had the experience of trying to care for a child in intensive care while worrying about another child at home. It is not an experience I would wish on anyone. It led me to become a trustee of the Cosmic charity, which tries to help families going through these types of experiences at the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, said, charities do incredible work supporting families in the most difficult circumstances. I urge the Government to think about what work they could do to look at the amendment and to see what more could be done to support parents and children in this situation.
Switching lanes to a Treasury mindset, I also support my noble friend Lady Barran’s Amendments 99 and 101. I know that the Government are sincere in their efforts to give every child the best possible start in life. I also know that at the Treasury and across Whitehall there is a huge push on government efficiency. This strikes me as an area where our failure to invest properly and consider how we can prevent these tragedies occurring has a huge fiscal cost, as well as the enormous emotional cost that we have heard about today.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, as others have said, this has been an important debate on two issues that go to the heart of how we need to care for those in the most vulnerable and difficult circumstances, and we share the objective of ensuring that we do better in both situations.
Amendments 99 and 101 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, concern support for birth parents who have had a child removed from their care and the collection of national data on repeat removals, respectively. This Government recognise that supporting birth parents can have a significant impact on keeping children safely at home and that more can and should be done.
I think it will be a theme of several of the groups this afternoon—in fact, it has been previously—that in some ways it is inevitable that as legislators we turn to legislation to deal with examples of not good enough practice where we want to achieve change. That is understandable, and in many cases, it is the right thing to do. Equally in my experience, strong practice, good evidence and innovation, often based on local needs, are a more effective way to achieve change. We need to be aware that mandating removes flexibility from local authorities to respond to local needs and priorities, increases local authority burdens and risks diverting funding from other preventive services that are not mandated by the legislation.
Also, we do not currently have a robust enough evidence base to mandate specific interventions nationally. This would also restrict innovation and deter locally developed interventions—for example, in Lincolnshire, whose TIME programme works with mothers who have experienced or are at risk of repeat removals of children from their care. Wolverhampton has a dedicated team supporting parents who have had a previous removal, and Warwickshire has its return home programme. We are already supporting the expansion of these services through the families first partnership programme, which is embedding the whole-family focus that noble Lords have rightly called for across children’s social care. That programme is backed by £2.4 billion of ring-fenced funding for prevention in this spending review period. It has, for example, already supported Redbridge to expand its pre-birth and post-birth service to promote earlier intervention with parents at risk of removals.
Through the families first partnership programme and wider reforms, we want to ensure that children’s social care support does not automatically drop away from a parent if they have a child removed from their care. The aim has to be to embed whole-family working throughout the children’s social care system in order to prevent future removals and to support children in returning home from care safely. We have previously committed to updating our Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023: Statutory Guidance to set out explicitly our expectations that birth parents are offered support. The updated FFP programme guide will also explicitly reference how the programme’s funding can be used to provide this support and will give examples of best practice.
On data collection, while equally, I support the sentiment of Amendment 101, once again I do not agree that a mandated collection is the right course of action or that it would have the desired impact. Mandatory collection would significantly increase the burden on local authorities, take resource away from service delivery and necessitate a significant change from existing practice that would require detailed work to assess feasibility and proportionality. Our wider reform programme is improving data collection and local information sharing. This will have a more positive impact on targeting support at a local level than a national collection.
Amendment 90, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, concerns a report into the barriers faced by the parents of critically ill children. I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Katz when a related amendment was tabled on Report on the Employment Rights Bill. I thank the noble Baroness for bringing this matter to the attention of the House, and, importantly, I acknowledge the resilience and courage shown by Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis in founding the charity It’s Never You and supporting other parents who find themselves facing similar unimaginably challenging personal circumstances. Parents and children in such a situation deserve and need support, and I know that that is the call noble Lords are making today.
My honourable friend in the other place, the Minister for Children and Families, Josh MacAlister, met with Ceri and Frances on 7 January, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson and the honourable Member for North East Hertfordshire, Chris Hinchliff, to discuss the charity’s work and this amendment. Caring for a critically ill child can affect parents’ mental health in different ways, as we have heard. The Government are committed to delivering the 10-year health plan, which sets out ambitious plans to boost mental health support across the country. We will transform the mental health system so that people can access the right support at the right time.
Other changes in the plan which will support parents of critically ill children include actively involving carers—in this case, parents—in the care planning of those they care for, as well as improved identification and support of people in such a situation to better understand their responsibilities and to provide more targeted support. In addition to mental health impacts and support, the amendment raises financial and employment pressures. The Government can provide financial support through the carer’s allowance and universal credit to those providing unpaid care to a severely disabled child, and are spending record amounts, due to be around £4.5 billion this year, on the carer’s allowance.
We recognise the considerable sacrifice that parents in this situation must make, and the impact that that can have on their employment. Parents who are employees are currently entitled to emergency time off for dependants, unpaid parental leave and unpaid carer’s leave, all of which may help them to manage situations of serious childhood illness. We know that many employers will go beyond the statutory minimum to support their staff in such distressing situations, and it was good to hear an example.
As announced by my noble friend Lord Katz at the Report stage of the Employment Rights Act, the Department for Business and Trade is working to launch a consultation on employment rights for parents and caregivers of seriously ill children. This will be the first government consultation specifically on the employment rights of these parents. This will consider whether a new leave entitlement in the workplace should be introduced, such as the proposal for Hugh’s law, campaigned for passionately and tirelessly by the charity It’s Never You.
On 11 December last year, my honourable friend the Minister for Employment Rights and Consumer Protection, Kate Dearden, announced that Hugh’s law will have its own chapter in the consultation. It will make sure that the voices of charities, healthcare professionals and families with a seriously ill child are heard, to ensure that any proposals put forward for consultation will reflect the needs of children and their parents. This recognises that more work needs to be done to understand the employment impact on parents of seriously ill children and the precise support that may be needed.
Lastly, in addition to this consultation, I am pleased to be able to tell the House that on the amendment before us calling for a report into barriers facing parents of critically ill children, the Government will take further action and commission a report on the mental health impact on the families of children with a terminal diagnosis. This will include a review of the available evidence and cost effectiveness. Ministers from the Department of Health and Social Care will meet with stakeholders, including Ceri and Frances, to discuss the scope of the report. We do not require a legislative duty to conduct this report, which could in fact slow down its progress, so we do not believe that this amendment is necessary. However, I hope that this commitment and other action being taken by the Government underscore the importance we are giving to this issue and to better supporting families in such difficult and tragic circumstances. I hope that noble Lords are reassured, and that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, it is clear from the debate that we have had this evening that this is an issue about which there is considerable concern. This Government recognise those concerns about the impact of screen time and about children’s online safety, particularly given some immensely troubling cases. This is a topic of profound national interest and, understandably, as we have also heard today, there are a range of opinions. However, one thing that we are all aligned on is the importance of keeping children safe. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology set out just yesterday in the other place, we are determined to help parents, children and young people to navigate these issues. We know many in this House and the other place have concerns around children’s online safety, how much screen time they get and how this can impact well-being. Rest assured that the Government hear those concerns and are prepared to act to deal with them.
I will come to yesterday’s announcement of a new consultation looking at how to improve children’s relationship with social media, but we should first recognise the significant action that this Government have already taken. The Online Safety Act brought in one of the most robust systems globally, with ground-breaking steps to tackle illegal content and activity and to protect children from harmful and age-inappropriate content. Much discussion today has been, as some have called it, frustration at the extent to which that is being fully utilised, but Ofcom has been prioritising its initial enforcement action against the most egregious harms, such as child sexual abuse material, self-harm content and children accessing pornography.
We fully expect further enforcement action to come. We have been very clear to Ofcom that it has the Government’s full backing to take enforcement action. We have since built on the Act’s foundations. First, we made content that promotes self-harm and suicide a priority offence. This provides users the strongest protections in the Act against this awful content. Last week my noble friend Lady Lloyd of Effra stood in this Chamber and confirmed that we will expedite legislation to criminalise the creation of non-consensual intimate images, and that this will be designated a priority offence under the Online Safety Act. Following this we made intimate image abuse and cyber flashing priority offences, and following that we have introduced an offence in the Crime and Policing Bill to criminalise AI models used to create child sexual abuse material. But we know that there is more to be done.
Amendments 91 and 106 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, seek to update the early years foundation stage statutory framework and ensure a public information campaign on screen use by children aged nought to five. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, has prosecuted this case with considerable energy and by bringing evidence to the Government. She has engaged well and the Government have taken action. Last week my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education announced that we will publish new practical, evidence-informed guidance for parents on early years screen time. Following a review led by the Children’s Commissioner and Professor Russell Viner, the new guidance will be published this April and made available to parents through the Best Start in Life website, giving them the clarity and support they are asking for to navigate screen time with their youngest children. The first meeting of the advisory group is tomorrow.
As part of this, we are going further still on screen time by developing guidance for parents of children aged five to 16, building on the early years guidance already under way. This will help parents to navigate the issue and support healthy conversations with their children about screen time. We are working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS to ensure that screen time guidance and messaging to parents and families are delivered through the most suitable and impactful channels to ensure that all professionals, including those in the health system, have simple and practical messages to offer parents. We will use multiple routes, extending beyond government channels, to raise awareness of it among parent audiences, including the Best Start in Life website, designed to provide trusted and supportive information for parents.
We think this new guidance should be available for early years practitioners. We will update the non-statutory guidance to provide further information and emphasis on screen time and outline the considerations around adult use of technology within settings and any implications this has on interactions with children. Where needed, the provider guidance will go beyond the early years screen time guidance for parents and we will take the next opportunity to incorporate the updated help for early years providers guidance in the early years foundation stage frameworks. In addition, the department is preparing to review our non-statutory curriculum guidance for early years settings, Development Matters. As part of this, we will include information on screen time and digital literacy to support early years practitioners and teachers to build and design an effective curriculum.
We are taking more action on appointing an expert panel to inform guidance for the sector on the effective and safe use of digital devices and CCTV. If findings from that review indicate that the requirements within the early years foundation stage need to be strengthened, we will of course do so. On the point about timing, we are able to commit that substantial changes will be made to the early years foundation stage after September 2026, but we will do this as soon as possible and no later than April 2027.
The provisions of the Online Safety Act have set the foundations and we are taking further immediate action, with new screen time guidance to support parents of early years children and practitioners. But we have always been clear that we will continue acting to protect children online and their wider well-being. Most debate on amendments today has been on those that seek to regulate children’s relationship with social media. Amendment 92 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nash, is on VPN services. Amendment 94A was also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nash. I accept the points made by noble Lords that the noble Lord has prompted considerable debate on this. Amendment 94B was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley. Amendments 108 to 110A were all tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. It is clear that there is a range of different views on the action that we need to take, even as there is a consensus that action is needed.
As many will be aware, yesterday the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology announced that we are taking still further action, because keeping children safe online is a top priority for the Government. We will launch a short, sharp consultation on how to improve children’s relationship with social media. This will be a three-month consultation, with the Government reporting back in the summer. We are determined to help parents, children and young people deal with these issues, with a lasting solution that gives children the childhood they deserve, enhances their well-being and prepares them for the future. As we have seen play out in this debate today, while there is consensus that a problem remains, there is a difference of opinion on how children’s relationship with social media and screen time should be further tackled. This is shown, as several noble Lords have identified, by some of the most prominent voices in this field believing that a social media ban is not the right answer. This is exactly why we are consulting on this matter.
As the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology stated yesterday, this is not about whether we should act; it is about how we should act. The consultation will seek views on a range of measures on many issues that have been raised: determining the right minimum age for children to access social media, including exploring a ban for children under a certain age; exploring ways to improve the accuracy of age assurance; and reviewing whether the current age of digital consent is the right age. It will also include reviewing children’s use of VPNs and how these can circumvent online safety protections. It will be accompanied by a national conversation. It is centring the voices of parents, children, those with lived experiences and people who work closely with children across the public sector. We will be sure to capture voices from across society, including the most vulnerable.
Rest assured that we intend to move quickly on this. As I say, it will be a three-month consultation, with the Government reporting back in the summer. To reassure the House, as the Secretary of State set out clearly yesterday, we want to act on this. We have had constructive conversations with noble Lords about these issues and we are keen to continue those conversations ahead of Third Reading to find a way forward on the Bill that allows action to be taken following the consultation and, if necessary, to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading to enable the Secretary of State, through secondary legislation, to deliver the relevant, evidence-based outcomes of the consultation. As I have set out, the question is not whether the Government will take further action—we will act robustly. The question is how to do this most effectively. I hope that this will reassure noble Lords of the Government’s intention and that they will feel able not to press their amendments in this area.
Finally, I turn to Amendments 93 and 110B, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Nash and Lord Storey. Amendment 93 would require any device sold in the UK to be preloaded with technology to prevent the recording, sharing and viewing of child sexual abuse material. Amendment 110B would prevent the creation, distribution and possession of child sexual abuse material. I acknowledge noble Lords’ intention to protect children through these amendments. I want to be clear that the Government share the ambition to protect children from nude imagery and to prevent the spread of child sexual abuse material online. That is why, in the violence against women and girls strategy, we have made it clear that we want to make it impossible for children in the UK to take, share or view nude images.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I support both amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in particular Amendment 113 on the school food improvement scheme. I am incredibly glad to see how many steps the Government are taking, but there are still things we need to work on. The noble Baroness referred to Professor Defeyter’s work on the finances and how, with big schools versus small schools, a lot of the money gets lost. It also happens with councils that are so cash-strapped that they sometimes take some of the money.
We are still living in a country where we have a postcode lottery on food. Some schools do amazing jobs with limited resources and some schools really do not. Nobody can now dispute the fact that the free school lunch, or any school lunch, is incredibly important to children. Yet we hear too often about schools that allow only 20 minutes for lunch, in which time you are meant to play, make a call, go to the toilet and have lunch, which is clearly going to be seen as a secondary part of a school.
It is also secondary in that the school catering departments at the moment get very little training. I wonder whether the Minister is aware of a scheme in the department being run by Chefs in Schools and a lot of philanthropic organisations to actively train chefs to go into schools and work with them to improve the quality. For the same amount of money, you can have really good quality and transform children’s lives.
Finally, nursery is equally important in getting kids eating the right stuff right from the beginning. I absolutely support that we need milk, but children also get fed there and those meals tend to fall outside of anything right now, as far as I can see. I would be interested to know what the Government will do.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in the third group cover free school meals, the nursery milk scheme, the Healthy Start scheme and school food. Ensuring that every child has access to nutritious food and support is fundamental to their health, development and ability to learn. We know that good nutrition starts early and that simple measures, whether access to milk or balanced school meals, can make a lasting difference.
I turn to government Amendments 111 and 112. Last year the Government announced that from September 2026, every child in a household receiving universal credit will be entitled to free school meals. This decisive action will lift 100,000 children across England out of poverty and save families around £500 per child each year. The amendments will enshrine this crucial commitment in law and ensure its successful delivery.
A child is currently eligible for free school meals if they attend a state-funded school in England, their household is in receipt of universal credit and the household’s income is less than £7,400. Government Amendment 112 creates a new category of free school meals, to be known as expanded free school meals, which will apply to that cohort of children in receipt of universal credit but with a household income greater than £7,400. This will ensure that free school lunches are provided on request to all pupils from households in receipt of universal credit and that state-funded schools in England will be under a duty to provide meals to those eligible children.
We will support over half a million more children in this way. Providing the most disadvantaged children with a healthy lunch each school day will help secure their education and improve their future prospects.
Government Amendment 111 will deliver the practical implementation of the free school meals expansion. The Department for Education relies on the provisions of the Education Act 2005 to process income and benefits data from other government departments so that it can check and confirm a child’s eligibility for free school meals. The scope of this power is, however, limited. This amendment will amend the 2005 Act to enable the department to identify whether a child is eligible under the current free school meals criteria or the expanded free school meals criteria and then communicate this to local authorities, parents and schools so that they in turn may determine whether a child is also eligible for other education benefits and funding.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, responds, I would like a small point of clarification from the Minister. I very much welcome the government amendments and congratulate the Government on what they are doing on free school meals. This is all very welcome, but in introducing it, the Minister said that the additional cohort would get a free school meal on request. She mentioned how the Government will make it easier for families to find out whether they are eligible, but can she say a little more about how they have to apply? Will it be as easy as possible?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Absolutely, it will be. First, by virtue of the fact that it is now open to all those on universal credit without the £7,400 cut-off, it is much clearer to families, to those supporting them and to schools who is eligible. Secondly, as I said, the provisions that enable the sharing of information, and therefore eligibility checks, will now also be open to parents themselves, not just through local authorities.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the Minister for her encouragement. I am not sure whether I wanted the accolade of being the anti-Thatcher milk donor, but I will take whatever she gives me.
I am encouraged by the Minister’s commitment. I managed to write down only “within six months” before the next thing she said—unfortunately, the ink in my pen ran out—so clearly parliamentary time will be available. I thought the Minister made encouraging remarks about the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but I feel that the noble Baroness might appreciate a few lines to expand on her final question. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Youth Unemployment
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leigh of Hurley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the rising level of youth unemployment.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, since May 2022, unemployment of young people has been rising. There are now almost 1 million young people not in education, employment or training. Young people face challenges such as lower skills, lack of work experience and a rise in reported health issues. In response, the Government are investing an additional £1.5 billion over the next three years through the youth guarantee and the growth and skills levy to help young people earn and learn. In addition, an independent review led by Alan Milburn will focus on the causes of youth unemployment.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Indeed, and this very morning the ONS announced that youth unemployment has risen yet again. Our national living wage is now approaching that of France, which has a staggering youth unemployment rate of 20%. Even the Resolution Foundation agrees that when the national living wage went up for 18 to 20 year-olds, unemployment went up as a direct result. Have the Government done any risk assessments to see at what point a higher national living wage, especially for 18 to 20 year-olds, affects employment and increases unemployment?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As the noble Lord knows, and as was the case under the previous Government and from the time that the Low Pay Commission was set up, we explicitly asked the commission to consider the implications on employment of recommendations around increases in the living wage. We will continue to do that so that we can both make progress on getting young people back into work and ensure that they are fairly rewarded when they are there.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I appreciate that the Government’s youth guarantee scheme is well intentioned, but would it not be more effective if it applied to those 18 to 21 year-olds who have been out of work and education for six months rather than 18 months—by which time many will have lost hope and confidence, and may have, in effect, checked out? I know from my experience as an employer that the earlier that you hire the young, both skilled and unskilled, the greater the chance of success. Does the Minister agree?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is talking about the Government’s job guarantee, which will come in after 18 months with a guaranteed job for all those on universal credit. However, it is not the case that there is no action under the youth guarantee before that. The new youth guarantee gateway will ensure that if, after 13 weeks, a young person is not earning or learning then they will have a meeting followed by four weeks of intensive support. During this period, they will receive tailored guidance and be offered up to six options, which could be work, work experience, sector-based work academy programmes, apprenticeships, training or learning. There will be 300,000 more opportunities funded by this Government to support young people long before they get to that 18-month point. However, that point is a guaranteed jobs backstop.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that, but what assessment has been made of the impact of poor mental health on young people’s ability to enter work? How joined up is the Department for Work and Pensions with the NHS—if it is joined up at all?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
There are certainly larger numbers of young people who, by virtue of mental health issues, are not in the labour market. That is why we have asked Alan Milburn to focus on this issue, why the Secretary of State for Health has initiated a review into the growing numbers of young people experiencing mental health problems, and why the Department for Education will ensure that there is a mental health professional to support every single school. That is joined-up government.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the youth guarantee scheme could represent a step change in dealing with profound issues around youth unemployment? Does the scheme include a gender analysis to make sure that young girls get those opportunities, alongside young boys or young men and women?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point. We will certainly ensure that we properly evaluate the youth guarantee trailblazers that are currently in place in eight areas, and the much- expanded national youth guarantee that we are now funding, and consider the sorts of impacts that my noble friend has identified.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, some of the best job opportunities are with some of our outstanding engineering companies throughout the United Kingdom, but some schools, colleges and universities do not allow companies involved in defence contracts to attend job fairs. What advice would the Minister give to schools and universities about the appropriateness of defence companies attending job fairs?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My advice would be that the defence industry is an enormously important part of this country’s engineering base. It is one of the eight areas identified in this Government’s industrial strategy and our young people should be encouraged to take advantage of the opportunities that there are in that industry.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will agree that this transition from school to employment is a critical stage in the life of every young person. Could she assure the House that all steps have been taken to ensure that the link between services for children and adult services is reinforced so that children do not find themselves fallen off a cliff at the end of school?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an enormously important point. It is sometimes at the point that young people finish school that they are lost to education or employment. That is why we will also put greater responsibilities on to schools to ensure the destinations of their pupils. We will deliver an automatic guarantee and automatic enrolment for young people into a college, and we will improve the risk of NEET indicators to identify earlier those young people who might end up not earning or learning.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, given that the poorest families in this country cannot afford for their children to do endless training courses, what work is being done to make sure these lead to full-time, proper employment that pays those families who are sending their young people to endless government training courses?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The training courses that will be provided as part of the youth guarantee will not be charged for, and neither will the improved training that we will provide post-16 or apprenticeships, where young people will be earning at the same time as they are learning. If the noble Lord is making a point about the cost of living pressures on young people then I wholly accept that, but our responsibility is to ensure that those young people, through the new, free opportunities provided by the youth guarantee, are set off on a life that will enable them to build a good and high income for themselves and their families.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome this initiative and thank the Minister for her responses. Is she aware that opportunities for young people with disabilities are very fractious at the moment? Will the Government ensure that people with all different disabilities, including autism, have the opportunity to benefit from this scheme with the kind of support that is promised?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point. As I said in my Answer, it is one of the reasons why young people find it difficult to get into either further training or the workplace. We will certainly ensure, as we are doing through additional support for employers in apprenticeships, that where a young person has a disability, that support will be available to them and to the employer offering them the opportunity to work.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I acknowledge the work that the Government are doing to improve the situation for young people, but businesses are clear that the Employment Rights Act, the Government’s minimum wage rules and spiralling business rates are the direct causes of young people being kept out of the labour market. We can solve this problem only by enabling business to create jobs. How are His Majesty’s Government going to get employers to employ people when the risk environment that has been created is just so high, and what are they going to do to change this problem?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is obviously the case that we need to support employers to take on young people who have been unemployed for a long period, which is why we will fully fund the job opportunities for young people who have been on universal credit for 18 months. But if it were the case that only the actions of this Government had been responsible for youth unemployment then we would not have seen the figures rising since May 2022 and we would not be seeing the same problem around the world. What is important is that this Government are taking action, including providing the financial support, to ensure that young people get back into work. I am glad that the noble Baroness supports those efforts.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“(5) In section 37 (service of documents)—(a) in subsection (1)—(i) omit the words from “carrying” to “agency”;(ii) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (a);(iii) at the end of paragraph (b) insert“; or(c) by being sent by email to the person’s email address.”;(b) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) A notice or other document sent to a person by email is, unless the contrary is proved, to be treated as having been served on the working day immediately following the day on which it was sent.”;(c) after subsection (5) insert—“(6) A person’s (P’s) email address for the purposes of this section is—(a) an email address identified for the time being by P, or by a person who manages an establishment or agency carried on by P, as an address for contacting P, or(b) if an email address is not so identified, an email address which the person serving the notice or other document believes is used by P.For the purposes of this subsection, a person “identifies” an email address by providing it to a registration authority or publishing it.(7) In subsection (3A) “working day” means a day other than a Saturday, a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in England and Wales.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow for notices under Part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000 to be served on parent undertakings and others by email.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove provision no longer needed because of the protection provided by the new general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and which came into force on 20 August 2025.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 18, page 35, line 35.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that for the purposes of the care provider offence in section 21 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (as amended by clause 20) “regulated care” includes care or support provided for any child rather than only a child aged 16 or 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove provision no longer needed because of the protection provided by the new general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and which came into force on 20 August 2025.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 26, page 45, lines 1 to 5.
Equality and Human Rights Commission: Code of Practice
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Strasburger, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Minister of State, Office for Equality and Opportunity (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations provides guidance on all protected characteristics, not solely sex and gender reassignment. The Government are considering the draft updated code, and if the decision is made to approve it, the Secretary of State will lay it before Parliament. Parliament will then have 40 days to consider the draft code. It is important that the correct process for considering the code is followed to ensure that the Secretary of State can make an informed decision.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the Education Secretary—the Minister, supposedly, for Women—has run out of road, with her procrastination, excuses and flannelling the object of ridicule. Organisations are using the Government’s refusal to lay the guidance as a pretext to stick with the Stonewall law, which has been wrong for a decade. This means that women encounter situations which compromise their safety, privacy and dignity in changing rooms, toilets and leisure centres, because these are not guaranteed to be single-sex. Why are the Government continuing to fail women and defy the rule of law?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, the Secretary of State for Education and the current Minister for Women has a proud and lifelong record of representing women. She also understands that in order to be able to do that, we need a code of practice that is both clear and legally defensible. I would have thought that anybody with women’s best interests at heart would agree with that.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, proportionality, as I am sure the whole House recognises, is central to the Equality Act. But, of course, it will be difficult to apply. Can my noble friend the Minister assure the House that the Government promote a consistent and lawful understanding of proportionality across policy areas, particularly where rights appear to be in tension, while ensuring that decisions remain fair, evidence-based and respectful?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, that is an important principle in terms of the interpretation of law and the sometimes difficult ways in which law is applied. The For Women Scotland judgment on the definition of “sex” within the Equality Act was clear, but it is important that it is applied in a way that both has legal clarity and respects the rights and dignity of all those involved.
Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green (CB)
My Lords, on a number of occasions in this House the Government have outlined how they are carefully considering the draft code and following proper process. Can the Minister clarify how the Government understand the balance between the independence of the EHRC and the Minister’s statutory role in approving a code and laying it before Parliament? I think that there is some confusion.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is for the independent commission to consult on and put forward the code to the Minister, as it has done. The full code, following the most recent judgment, was received on 3 September by the department. It is important that it is then properly reviewed. As I have outlined previously, various elements must take place; for example, consultation with the devolved Administrations. Then it is the Minister’s responsibility, if satisfied with that code, to lay it before the House under the process set out in the Equality Act.
Baroness Cash (Con)
We have had a number of Questions now on this matter so it would be very helpful to the House if the Minister could finally provide a timetable to indicate when we might have this laid before Parliament.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I have been pretty clear every time that I have answered. People might not like the answer. But ensuring that what is laid before Parliament is legally defensible will enable those who need the protection of this code and of the Equality Act to receive it without us being bogged down in lengthy legal proceedings. I think that is a sensible thing for any Government to be spending a bit of time on getting right.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare an interest. I am paid to advise the Metropolitan Police on culture and leadership. I joined the Metropolitan Police as a constable 50 years ago in 1976—I tell people I joined when I was seven. One of the things that undermine public confidence in laws and those who enforce them is when rules and regulations, however legally sound and well intentioned, are not enforceable in practice. How sure are the Government that the EHRC Code of Practice is actually workable?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Workability is one important criterion; so is a certainty that the code fulfils the legal requirements and the clarity that has now been brought into the law by the For Women Scotland judgment. But the noble Lord is right that what can be very clear in law may be more complex in terms of its application in every single circumstance. It is important that that is clear through the process of the code.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her very clear answers so far. Does she agree with me that although the Supreme Court is definitive on the meaning of the Equality Act, it was silent as to other continuing obligations—for example, to trans people under the Human Rights Act—and that navigating coterminous legal obligations is one of the complex challenges of the guidance and that it has to be got right?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is right that it is important, and it is the basis of the Equality Act, to recognise the rights of all those with protected characteristics within it. What was helpful in the Supreme Court’s judgment was the absolute clarification that trans people’s rights remain protected within the Equality Act 2010. We have been clear that the laws to protect trans people from discrimination and harassment will remain in place and that trans people will still be protected on the basis of gender reassignment, which is a protected characteristic written into the Equality Act.
Work is already under way to fulfil our commitment to advance the rights and protections afforded to LGBT+ people, and that includes delivering a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, working with the Home Office to deliver our commitment to equalise all existing strands of hate crime, and working with the Department of Health and Social Care to improve services for trans people.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, does the Minister have any advice for women such as Miranda Newsom, who, assuming that the Supreme Court had settled the matter, challenged a biological male in the female-only changing room at a council-run leisure centre in Southwark and received a torrent of abuse from the man, yet it was she who was punished and barred from the gym? Can the Minister assure the House that after the victory of the Darlington nurses the Government are urgently instructing NHS bodies to bring their policy fully into compliance with the law? If they do not, they are complicit with unlawful behaviour of service providers.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The Government have been clear that the judgment provides clarity around the definition of sex within the Equality Act. We have been clear that therefore all providers should be following that, taking specialist legal advice where necessary, and ensuring that, with respect for everybody’s rights and dignity, we can make progress on this in a way that respects the law but also ensures that everybody is able to have the rights and protections that the Equality Act so importantly laid down in 2010.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, in the wake of the Sandie Peggie v Fife Health Board and the Darlington nurses v County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust decisions—the participants are in the Gallery—does the Minister accept that there is also an urgent need for all NHS trusts to update their policies in the light of the Supreme Court ruling? Have the Government sought this? As my noble friend Lady Cash set out so well, what timetable have the Government set up for compliance? How much longer do we have to wait? With all respect to the House, if my grandmother was saying this, she would say that Nelson will get his eye back before this happens.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As I have already been clear today and previously when responding to this, it is important that all bodies, public and private, consider the clarity of the For Women Scotland Supreme Court judgment and review their policies in line with that. That goes for the NHS, and it goes for other organisations as well. I just emphasise that the fact that some people have found it necessary to revert to legal cases to get their rights is precisely why we need to make sure that the interpretation of the most recent judgment is clear and not going to mean people having to take their rights through the courts to have them realised in future. It is in order to ensure that that is more likely to be the case that the Government are taking the time necessary to get this right.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“(2A) In subsection (2), after paragraph (f) insert—“(g) financial literacy.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add services relating to financial literacy to the list of services in section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017 which may assist care leavers in, or in preparing for, adulthood and independent living, and about which a local authority in England must publish information.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, on Amendments 43 and 49, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, everybody who has contributed to the debate today, and certainly the Government, are fully committed to every care-experienced child having loving, life-long relationships with those they care about—particularly with siblings, as several noble Lords have focused on. We recognise that relationships are fundamental to identity, well-being and long-term outcomes.
Although I absolutely support their intent, neither of these amendments is necessary and would duplicate existing legislation. As stated in Committee and referenced today, there is already a legal duty on local authorities, in paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989, to “endeavour to promote contact” between looked-after children and their relatives, friends and other connected people,
“unless it is not reasonably practicable or consistent with”
the child’s welfare.
Additionally, Amendment 49 would not serve to strengthen the duty placed on local authorities to make contact arrangements between siblings; it requires only that where contact arrangements are made, they are recorded in the care plan—a duty that already exists in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the regulations. Existing statutory guidance, such as the Children’s Social Care National Framework, which sets the outcomes that local authorities should achieve for children, young people and families, already emphasises the importance of family networks. This, alongside other guidance, builds on the legislative duty to emphasise the importance of family networks and listening to children’s voices about who and what is important to them.
It is absolutely right that the care system and professionals involved in the care of looked-after children should help them to maintain relationships, including staying connected to siblings, family, carers and wider community networks. That is why the Government have been taking practical action to unlock any barriers to this and have already made clear commitments in this area. For example, as discussed last week, we are mandating the offer of family group decision-making at pre-proceedings where that is in the child’s best interests, which could of course include considerations about contact arrangements with family members.
The family-finding, befriending and mentoring programme mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, helps children in care and care leavers to identify and connect with the important people in their lives. We are currently funding 46 programmes across 43 local authorities, with 21 local authorities delivering lifelong links. The evaluation mentioned by the noble Lord is ongoing, but the interim evaluation report, published in September 2025, shows a statistically significant increase in reported relationships after children and young people have participated in the programme.
The noble Lord asked about the funding of the programme. We are determined to continue learning from the effectiveness of programmes such as this that support children and young people in care to build and strengthen relationships. Plans for the continuation of this programme beyond this financial year are currently subject to business planning and will of course also be subject to the continued evaluation that we are committed to.
Having said that, our view, and the view of stakeholders with whom we have consulted, is that issues in promoting contact, particularly between siblings, tend to be more practical and logistical than legislative or caused by a lack in legislation. My officials have met the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, who I know takes a very close interest in this, to discuss this important topic and have taken her very useful insights on board, which is why we will commit to identifying and sharing best practice on facilitating sibling relationships to ensure that local authorities support all children in care to have loving relationships with family members. We think that that is the right way to focus on ensuring that this is achieved in practice.
Amendment 61, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, aims to prevent looked-after children being placed far from home through amending the sufficiency duty on local authorities. The Government are clear that ensuring children can remain close to their home, community and connections with loved ones is crucial to improving the outcomes of care-experienced children, as several noble Lords have emphasised. That is why, to support local authorities in meeting their sufficiency duty, over £130 million is being invested in fostering hubs, kinship care and children’s homes.
Additionally, the Bill introduces legislation that will enable the Secretary of State to direct local authorities to establish regional co-operation arrangements to improve the commissioning of children’s social care placements and meet their sufficiency duty. However, the proposed amendment would not strengthen the existing sufficiency duty; in fact, we believe that it would weaken it. It would allow local authorities to provide and rely on more accommodation “near to” their area rather than “within” it, risking increased out-of-area placements and more children being placed far from home, not fewer. We also do not consider that changing the wording in the way proposed would have the effect on the effort required by local authorities that the noble Baroness wants it to have. It would not, in effect, have any meaningful impact on local authorities’ decision-making.
Amendment 62, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, seeks to add a requirement for a registered mental health practitioner to undertake an assessment of every child’s state of health when they become looked after, and for a registered mental health practitioner to be added as a professional who may undertake health reviews of looked-after children. As many noble Lords have identified during this debate, the significant trauma that many children who become looked after have experienced, and the lasting impact this trauma can have, means that providing effective mental health support is absolutely crucial.
Unless a child who is of sufficient age and understanding to consent, refuses to do so, all children must have an assessment of their health when they become looked after. Existing regulations require that this must be completed by a registered medical practitioner. It must include an assessment of emotional and mental health and it must be kept under review. The statutory guidance states that the health practitioner carrying out the assessment has a duty of clinical care to the child. This includes making the necessary referrals for investigation and treatment of conditions identified. So there is already a clear expectation for the necessary referral to be made where a child is assessed as needing investigation or treatment from a mental health practitioner. This means that it is not necessary to add the specific requirement for a registered mental health practitioner to the legislation. However, I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns. This will inform changes to statutory guidance to further strengthen implementation and ensure that children in care receive the services and support they need for their mental health and well-being. It is a strengthening of the position that we took in Committee.
Alongside that, we have also made progress since then. In December, the Health Secretary and the Minister for Children and Families announced that, in a boost for mental health support, the Government will trial a three-year pilot to make sure that children in care have access sooner to the support they need. This will build on existing work across the country, bringing together social workers and NHS health professionals to work together to provide direct mental health support to children and families when they need it most.
In relation to points made by the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Russell, the DfE is committed to understanding and addressing the shockingly high number of early deaths among care-experienced young people. As the department progresses this work, we will carefully consider how to improve the support that care leavers receive across a range of aspects of their lives, including their mental and physical health. We know, however, that there will be more to do to ensure that this focus on mental health is implemented as consistently and effectively as possible. We would welcome a meeting with the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children, which I know has made this a priority, to discuss this important matter and what more we can do. I thank the noble Baroness for raising this important point and for pushing it in the way that she has.
I turn to Amendment 71, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. This amendment is on registration and local authority oversight of accommodation for looked-after children and education provided in alternative settings. This Government are absolutely clear that placing children in illegal, unregistered homes is unacceptable. Looked-after children should only ever be placed in accommodation that is run by a registered provider. For children’s homes and supported accommodation, providers must be registered with Ofsted, the single national regulator that is able to ensure that safeguarding and quality standards are being met. Creating a second registration system run by local authorities, as proposed in this amendment, risks creating confusion and duplication. For this reason, we do not believe that this amendment is the right approach to reduce the use of unregistered accommodation placements.
In his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, focused on non-school, unregistered alternative provision. I welcome the noble Lord’s support for the proposals that we announced last year to strengthen protections for children in these settings, including for those in care. As I set out in the letter to which the noble Lord referred, these reforms comprise creating a new local regulatory framework and national standards. They are substantial and require careful engagement with the sector. Introducing these measures now, in the Bill, would bypass full parliamentary scrutiny. But we recognise the significance of what the noble Lord was saying and, instead, they will form part of our wider SEND and alternative provision reforms in the forthcoming schools White Paper, ensuring that they deliver for children.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendments 46 and 47 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. In Committee and again this evening, we covered in detail the distress caused to parents and children by the very late timing of the announcement in relation to the support fund and by the cut in the size of the grant. In particular, Amendment 46 gives the Government an opportunity to review how best to use this funding ahead of the grant period in March 2027. I am not aware of any compelling evidence that supports the earlier decision to cut the grant size and to reduce the funding for specialist assessments, but if that exists perhaps the Minister can share it today. Of course, we on these Benches are open to improving the way funds are distributed, but we are genuinely concerned by the lack of visibility on what will happen next year. I hope very much that the Government will address this tonight.
I have also retabled my Amendment 100, which would give foster carers clear delegated authority for the children in their care on practical day-to-day matters. Foster carers have been clear that they would value this and, crucially, it is one of the reasons why we see too many leaving the profession. I hope the Minister can be more encouraging today than she was in Committee on this important point.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As I reply to this group of amendments, I assure noble Lords that I will try not to drench anybody during the course of my response—although I have now decided to set myself an ambition of juggling three bottles of water by the time we get to the end of Report.
Important issues are covered in this group. Amendments 46 and 47 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, concern funding for the adoption and special guardianship support fund and provide a further opportunity to debate these important issues. Around 3,000 children are adopted each year and more than 3,800 enter special guardianship. I salute all those who welcome these vulnerable, often traumatised children into their homes and hope that the centenary celebrations noble Lords have alluded to, taking place here this evening, enable a celebration of that contribution and, rightly, as we have heard in this debate, a challenge about how we can do our best to support those who undertake adoption and special guardianship in future.
Almost 57,000 children have received adoption and special guardianship support since 2015, and many of them more than once. Since April 2025, we have approved applications for nearly 16,000 children. However, it is important to remember that this is not the only source of funding. The Families First Partnership programme will total £2.4 billion over the next three years. That funding is available to both adoptive and kinship families and to the services that support them. We have already confirmed that adoption and special guardianship funding will be continued for 2026-27. Further details will be shared in due course through the usual funding announcements.
As several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Watson, have made clear, we need to think longer term about the future of adoption support, as we promised to Parliament in September that we would—and perhaps even more so as we celebrate the centenary of adoption. We will shortly set out plans to engage widely on this with the aim of understanding how best to support children and young people to thrive in their new families and get the support they need in the most effective way.
I turn to Amendment 100, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and thank her for raising this important issue again. I would have to look back at the record, but I have a considerable amount of sympathy on this, which I hope I shared in Committee. Foster carers offer crucial support to some of the most vulnerable children in our society. They provide love, stability and compassion to children and young people when they need it most. They therefore need to have the ability and the responsibility to make the decisions that they think are suitable for children.
The Government are prioritising fostering. Through the fostering recruitment and retention programme, we have been supporting over 60% of local authorities across England in 10 regional clusters to recruit and support foster carers. We know that we need to build on this to further accelerate foster-care recruitment and retention and we will soon publish a comprehensive set of measures to achieve this with regional care co-operatives and fostering hubs at the heart of these plans.
In relation to the issue specifically covered by this amendment, which seeks to ensure that foster carers have, by default, delegated authority on day-to-day issues, except where an alternative decision-maker is listed on the child’s placement plan, our guidance already sets out that foster carers should be able to make day-to-day decisions about the children in their care. I accept that too often we hear that this does not happen in practice, meaning that children in care miss out on normal childhood experiences and feel as if they are treated differently from their peers. I agree with the spirit of this amendment, but it is not necessary to include this in this Bill. Local authorities should already delegate all day-to-day decisions, and we have clear guidance that sets this out. We will nevertheless be taking further action on this issue as the noble Baroness pushes us to do.
Our upcoming fostering publications will set out our plans for ensuring that foster carers can feel confident in making day-to-day decisions for the children in their care. Our publications will also set out plans to reform the fostering national minimum standards. These will also reflect our position on day-to-day decision-making and how fostering services can support carers to make these decisions. Any changes to the national minimum standards, including those concerning decision-making for foster carers, would benefit from a period of consultation with relevant stakeholders. I accept the noble Baroness’s point that it is important that we make progress in this area.
Given that commitment and our plans on the longer-term provision of adoption support, I hope that I have addressed the concerns of noble Lords and that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful that the Minister agrees with the spirit of this amendment. She highlights that some parents have made up the difference and found the money themselves to carry on with this. I find it perverse that, for children with all sorts of problems who need therapeutic counselling, it is suddenly going to stop because the money is not there. Some parents have made up the difference, but those who cannot afford it are not able to do so. Those who come from a poor background and do not have the money are probably the ones who most need it. Those who have got the money can dip their hand in their pocket and pay the difference. That cannot be right in 21st-century UK. For those reasons, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“Children in temporary accommodation(1) After section 213A of the Housing Act 1996 (homelessness: co-operation in certain cases involving children) insert—“213AA Duty of local housing authority in England to notify in certain cases involving children(1) This section applies where a local housing authority in England secures that accommodation is available for occupation by a child, in response to an application for assistance under this Part, unless securing that such accommodation is available means the authority ceases to be subject to the duty under section 193.(2) Except as provided in subsection (3), the authority must ask the parent of the child—(a) to agree to the authority notifying each relevant body applicable to the child that accommodation has been secured for the child as mentioned in subsection (1), and(b) if that agreement is given, to provide the authority with information about those bodies to enable the authority to identify each relevant body applicable to the child.(3) If the child— (a) is 16 or 17 years old,(b) is living independently from their parents, and(c) is the applicant for assistance within the meaning of section 183(2),the authority must ask the child as provided in subsection (2)(a) and (b).(4) If the parent or child (as the case may be) agrees to the authority making the notification mentioned in subsection (2)(a), the authority must take reasonable steps to notify each relevant body applicable to the child within 14 days beginning with the latest of—(a) the day on which the authority receives agreement,(b) the day on which the information about the relevant body is provided to the authority, and(c) the day on which the child is placed in accommodation.(5) The duties in subsections (2) and (4) only arise once in relation to each application for assistance under this Part.(6) In this section “relevant body” means—(a) the general medical practice in England with which the child is registered;(b) the body in the child’s local authority area in England through which health visiting services are available to the child;(c) the appropriate authority of a relevant educational institution in England at which the child is a registered pupil or student.(7) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations for the purposes of this section—(a) specifying any other description of body as a “relevant body”;(b) specifying any other institution as a relevant educational institution;(c) specifying the appropriate authority to be notified under this section in relation to an institution specified under paragraph (b).(8) In this section—“appropriate authority” means—(a) in relation to an Academy, a non-maintained special school, a special post-16 institution, an independent school or a provider of post-16 education or training, the proprietor;(b) in relation to a school maintained by a local authority or an institution within the further education sector, the governing body;“child” means a person under the age of 18;“parent” in relation to a child, includes any person—(a) who is not a parent of the child but who has parental responsibility for the child, or(b) who has care of the child, disregarding any absence of the child at a hospital or boarding school or any other temporary absence;“parental responsibility” has the meaning given by section 3 of the Children Act 1989;“proprietor” means the person or body of persons responsible for the management of the school or institution;“relevant educational institution” means—(a) an Academy (as defined by section 579(1) of the Education Act 1996) other than a secure 16-19 Academy (within the meaning of section 1B(7) of the Academies Act 2010);(b) a school maintained by a local authority (within the meaning of section 142(1) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998); (c) a non-maintained special school (within the meaning of section 337A of the Education Act 1996);(d) an independent school (within the meaning of section 463 of the Education Act 1996);(e) an institution within the further education sector (within the meaning of section 91(3) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992);(f) a special post-16 institution (within the meaning of section 83 of the Children and Families Act 2014);(g) a provider of post-16 education or training that provides the kind of education or training mentioned in section 123(1)(d) or (g) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006;(h) a provider of post-16 education or training that provides education or training, other than in institutions within the further education sector, which is suitable to the requirements of persons aged 16 or over but under 19 and funded wholly or partly by the Secretary of State.”(2) The amendment made by this section does not apply in relation to a child for whom a local housing authority in England has secured accommodation in response to an application for assistance under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 which was made before the date on which this section comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would insert a new section into the Housing Act 1996, imposing a duty on local housing authorities in England to notify health and educational bodies when a child is placed in temporary accommodation where the parent (or the child in some cases) agrees to that notification being made.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, government Amendment 50 regards notifications where children are placed in temporary accommodation. All noble Lords who spoke to this in Committee saw this as a clearly sensible change to make sure such children can receive the right support when they need it. I am pleased to tell noble Lords that, following extensive cross-government work, the Government have tabled an amendment to introduce a new duty on local housing authorities to notify educational institutions, GP practices and health visiting services when a child is placed in temporary accommodation, if consent is provided.
This underscores this Government’s commitment to break down barriers to opportunity and support all children to have the best life chances. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and my honourable and very good friend Dame Siobhain McDonagh for raising what the House in Committee agreed is a very important issue and for engaging the Government constructively on it. This government amendment builds on the previous amendments, achieving their intent. Children in temporary accommodation are particularly vulnerable and may need additional support. This notification will alert health and education providers, enabling them to respond appropriately in accordance with existing duties and responsibilities and help to mitigate the harmful impacts of living in temporary accommodation.
For example, schools and colleges may wish to consider interventions such as providing pastoral support or practical assistance such as breakfast clubs, after-school activities and homework support. Health services may consider making proactive contact with families in temporary accommodation to ensure they do not experience gaps in healthcare provision. Guidance will follow for local authority housing officers and the public bodies receiving the notifications to ensure that we effectively implement this very important measure. Therefore, I beg to move this amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, this is an improved version of Amendment 165, tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and me. We are all very grateful for this very positive response. Some 41,000 households in temporary accommodation have been placed out of area and 26,640 of them are households with children, so a large number of children will benefit from this.
I have three quick questions for the Minister. First, when she wound up the debate in Committee, she said some technical issues needed to be resolved. I think she said there were some operational issues to see how it can work. I assume those have been resolved. I hope there can be some IT solutions that mean we do not have to do this manually and it will be done automatically. Secondly, under proposed new subsections (6)(a) and (6)(b), the bodies that have to be notified that there is a child in their area in temporary accommodation out of area are medical practices and schools in England. Those living in Shropshire, for example, may be placed out of area in Wales—is there any duty to notify the Welsh authorities that they have children in temporary accommodation living in their area? Thirdly and finally, when will this very helpful amendment come into operation? What is the commencement date? Having said that, I warmly welcome this initiative.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches warmly welcome the amendment and thank the Government for tabling it.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their thanks and contributions. Tabling and discussing this amendment has been an important first step. We are clear that, if it is agreed, as it appears it will be—this goes to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Young, raised about some of the technical areas where we need to ensure that this works effectively—we will continue to work across departments so that it has the impact that the Government desire: to strengthen information sharing so that educational institutions and health providers are aware where children living in temporary accommodation may require additional or different support.
As I said, alongside the legislation we will provide guidance for local authority housing officers and relevant education and health bodies to ensure that the duty is well understood by all relevant bodies. Where possible, we will update existing guidance to minimise burdens and support accessibility.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, it is worth saying that this is one part of the action that the Government are taking with respect to temporary accommodation. Through our homelessness strategy, published in December, we have set out a range of measures to support families with children in temporary accommodation, including protecting record levels of investment in tackling homelessness and rough sleeping, and eliminating the use of bed and breakfast accommodation for families, other than very short-term use in emergencies, by the end of this Parliament. We have set an ambition to cut school days lost for children in temporary accommodation, with a stronger role for pastoral teams to work closely with families in that situation, including preventing unlawful removal from a school’s roll. We have made a clear pledge to prevent deaths caused by gaps in healthcare. To achieve that, there will be proactive health outreach to families in temporary accommodation, and a clinical code to improve data and prevent incidents. We will end the practice of discharging newborns into bed and breakfast, or other unsuitable housing, and work with the NHS on safe and robust pathways.
In response to another question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Young, there is no duty within this amendment to notify the Welsh, but we will look at how we can do that in regulations in the future, if needed. I wholly take his point, given that I come from that part of the country myself, about areas that are close to the border, where moves may be happening across the border.
I will write to noble Lords with an update on the timetable for the implementation of this very important step. I thank noble Lords for the welcome they have given it this evening.
Lord Hampton (CB)
I have added my name to Amendment 53. It is vital that children who are deprived of liberty can access quality education. Otherwise, we really are depriving them of hope and a future. I too quote the Children’s Commissioner:
“For the very small number of children where controls on their freedom are necessary in order to keep them or others safe, we must make sure they have not only excellent, individualised care, but also full protection under the law … we have a moral obligation to ensure that children at risk of harm are not simply contained and kept out of the community, but are seen, heard, and given the care and support they need to thrive”.
She continues later:
“Where a deprivation of liberty is authorised, the conditions should include a plan for meeting the child’s specific needs through intensive intervention and work aimed at helping them to be safe in the long-term. This plan should be co-produced by health and social care if appropriate, and could include mental health support, mood and behaviour management, work on addressing risks of exploitation, educational support, and any other specialist therapeutic intervention that is required”.
Once again, adding one word to the Bill could change many futures.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for raising important points regarding Clause 11, which, as noble Lords have identified, relates to some of the most vulnerable children in the country. I know that noble Lords rightly feel particularly strongly about this measure. I thank the noble Baroness for her engagement with my officials ahead of this debate, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield.
It is important to remember that Clause 11 will already make an important change from some of the situations identified by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, correctly and graphically identified some of the challenges with the current operation of the system, which is why this measure seeks to bring more children who would otherwise be deprived of their liberty under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court within a statutory scheme where they will benefit from enhanced safeguards and protections, which many of the amendments in this group are seeking.
Turning to these amendments, I reiterate that this measure is intended not to encourage the practice of depriving children of their liberty but to ensure that there are appropriate rights and safeguards in place to prevent children being deprived of liberty inappropriately or for longer than is absolutely necessary. We are committed to reducing the number of children in complex situations as part of reforms to rebalance the system away from crisis intervention towards earlier help and to prevent children’s needs escalating to the point where they need to be deprived of their liberty, and to ensuring that when they are, it can happen in more appropriate accommodation than has been the case up to this point.
We are grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its scrutiny and have, in government Amendment 57, accepted its recommendation that regulations developed using the powers under Section 25 of the Children Act 1989 be subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring parliamentary scrutiny and approval in both Houses.
Amendment 56 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is about joint funding arrangements between partners for children deprived of their liberty under this measure. The Government wholly agree that care for these children must be jointly funded and delivered through an integrated, whole-system approach, which should include social care, health, education and youth justice. However, we do not wish to restrict pooled funding arrangements in the way this amendment does, tying it to the existence of the Section 25 order. We think pooled funding arrangements would be beneficial to a wider cohort of looked-after children, including those whose order has recently come to an end or who are at risk of needing to be deprived of their liberty. This requires testing first to ensure that the right cohort of children and relevant partners are included.
That is why the Department for Education, with NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care, is leading a national programme to tackle underlying systemic failures and to support local areas to work together more effectively. We are building cross-system integration, starting with the peer collaborative convened by the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory—rightly praised by several noble Lords this evening—which identified key elements for transforming care for children with complex trauma, supporting professionals to stand together so that risk is better tolerated and supported.
West Sussex, part of the South East Regional Care Cooperative, is working closely with the ICB to test how a cross-system team can drive integrated support, build an understanding of need and identify gaps in the current pathways across health, social care and justice for this cohort of children. We are not waiting; we are making quick progress in a way that is most likely to be appropriate and solve the problems. Next year we will expand to pilots, where we will evaluate methods of pooled funding, developing best practices that can be adopted and adapted by other local areas. We know that pooled funding works—such as through the better care fund for adults—but legislating now would be premature. We must first test and refine the most effective approach to ensure that the eventual framework enables the right level of cross-system integration and innovation.
Amendment 55 on recovery plans, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, aims to ensure that there are plans to remove restrictions from a child. The Government agree that no child should be deprived of their liberty any longer than absolutely necessary, which is why there are already several existing duties on local authorities in this regard, including the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of any child looked after by them, and that placement decisions are informed by a care plan based on an understanding of the child’s needs and best interests.
Rather than legislate further in this space, diverting local authorities’ attention toward navigating an increasingly complex statutory framework instead of focusing on the child’s needs, we want to strengthen the way in which existing legislation is applied, re-emphasising the need for a care plan that is co-designed between all the professionals involved in a child’s care and treatment.
As part of the court application, it is the practice of local authorities to submit the child’s full care plan. The court should be provided with both the restrictions they plan to impose and the action and progress required to end restrictions as quickly as possible. The plan should be formulated with input from all those professionals involved in the child’s care and will be scrutinised by the court and used to assess progress. If the court is not satisfied about the level of detail included in the plan to allow it to monitor progress and de-escalation, the court should require further input from the relevant professionals.
Similarly, regarding Amendment 60 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, relating to the abilities of independent reviewing officers to escalate concerns on the implementation of a child’s plan to Cafcass, IROs already have the statutory power to perform this function. They are responsible for monitoring the performance of local authorities in relation to a child’s care plan and must consider escalating cases to Cafcass whenever appropriate. This includes issues related to deprivation of liberty. It is therefore not necessary to legislate to expand the legal duties of IROs.
“(9A) In section 104 of the Children Act 1989 (regulations and orders)—(a) in subsection (3A), after “(3B)” insert “, (3BZA)”;(b) after subsection (3B) insert—“(3BZA) Regulations fall within this subsection if they are regulations made in the exercise of the power conferred by section 25(2) or (7).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that regulations made under section 25(2) or (7) of the Children Act 1989 (use of accommodation for restricting liberty) as amended by clause 11, will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Barran. We have heard from a number of Members of the House about the changes that this part of the Bill is making. A fundamental rebalancing of responsibilities in social care is being carried through in the pilots. It is putting much more on to the shoulders of less-qualified staff. The reforms are intended to streamline the system and manage rising costs but, as my noble friend has pointed out, there are many concerns from experts such as Professor Eileen Munro and from many practitioners about the implications of inexperienced staff finding themselves doing child protection work, which, paradoxically, could lead to more Section 47 investigations, not fewer, which was one of the aims of the reforms.
Taking one step back, the hypothesis behind the reforms was the idea that the social care system had become weighted too much towards individual children in isolation rather than children in the family context, and that more of the support available should be diverted to families rather than given to individual children. However, little account was taken of the profile of the children most likely to be in the care of a local authority. They include children with severe disabilities and special needs, often children who are most likely unavoidably to live in social care as adults. They are children whose parents simply do not have the capacity to manage at home, even with extensive support. Indeed, the strain of trying to manage a child’s needs has sometimes fractured parental and other family relationships. More family support and more kinship care is often simply not a solution.
Then we have to acknowledge that there are some children who simply do not have a decent parent nor any other decent adult in their family and realistically never will have. It is horrible, but true, that there are children who simply do not have a family member able and willing to give them the care, attention and love that they need. We have somehow to recognise and face this.
A substantial minority of looked-after children are unaccompanied migrant children, typically boys in their late teens. These children are not here because they have a dysfunctional family network that needs support and intervention by our social workers. They need help, but other kinds of help. There are, of course, risks to these children, and there are also risks to others from some of them.
Together, these kinds of children account for a substantial proportion of the social care caseload, yet the reforms that are being pushed through do not acknowledge their particular needs. For all these reasons, considering all these kinds of children, Amendment 17 in particular, which would defer carrying through the full reforms until the full findings from the pilots and pathfinders are published, discussed and understood, and any necessary changes reflected, is important. It would be unsafe to proceed.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, creating new multi-agency child protection teams through Clause 3 is not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, suggested, about saving money; it is about bringing together social workers, police, health and education colleagues with experience in child protection to take swift and effective action that protects children from harm at the earliest opportunity. I hope that I will be able to respond to the points raised in this short debate, as we did at length in Committee and have continued to do since then through engagement, which noble Lords have acknowledged, including, in my case, directly with directors of children’s services.
Government Amendments 12 and 14 broaden the range of police staff who can work in these teams to include police officers and other police staff experienced in child protection. The need for this amendment arose as we talked more closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing to make sure that we were providing the scope for the correct representatives from policing to be on these teams. We are confident that this will improve front-line operational capacity through the right people with the right skills working in the team. Regulations will be clear that individuals must have appropriate levels of experience, seniority, qualification and expertise. I will come back a little later in my remarks to how we will ensure that those appropriate levels are delivered.
Noble Lords have heard me speak before in Committee—in fact, at some length—about the Families First Partnership programme, where we are investing £2.4 billion over the next three years to change the way that we help, support and protect children. One element of that—introducing new multi-agency child protection teams—brings a sharp focus to better multi-agency working, information sharing and decision-making. I therefore welcome the opportunity to address amendments relating to these new teams, to clarify what we are learning through the national rollout and how this will inform the future legislative framework on day-to-day operations.
I turn first to Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on the important matter of child protection for very young children in legal proceedings. Of course, as the noble Baroness identified, these are children who are widely represented in the system and for whom we need special care. However, Amendment 6 would require specific senior sign-off for the decision to end a child protection plan when proceedings have been initiated or care or supervision orders are issued for children under five. As I have outlined before, these plans should end only through a child protection conference, when multi-agency practitioners are confident that a child is no longer suffering or likely to suffer significant harm, and not automatically when proceedings are initiated.
I know the noble Baroness is concerned that children in these circumstances may fall between teams or services deciding whether staying at home will keep them safe from harm. I want to reassure her, and other noble Lords, that I am confident that reforming the system of family help, with new multi-agency child protection teams wrapped around, is about exactly this: making sure the whole system holds the safety and well-being of children as the number one priority.
I will now speak to Amendments 11, 13, 15 and 16, also tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. These amendments focus on the operation and delivery of the new multi-agency child protection teams. Amendment 13 seeks to ensure that the new teams would operate within the existing statutory framework, Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023, and that these teams have sufficient access to health safeguarding expertise, specifically in relation to the NHS intercollegiate document, Safeguarding Children and Young People in Care: Competencies for Health Care Staff.
I reassure noble Lords that these teams, as part of the safeguarding partners, will absolutely be required, under the existing duties in Sections 16E, 16G and 16K, to comply with the expectations set out in the working together statutory guidance and local arrangements. We are working closely with health, police and local authority national leaders to ensure that practitioners in the teams have the skills, expertise and knowledge they need, or need access to, to deliver effective child protection interventions.
On the specific point about the police, I want to be clear that the intention of broadening the category, as we have done in the government amendments, would not suggest that a volunteer special constable would be suitable for one of these roles, but we could envisage police staff who would be appropriately qualified. In fact, as I have said, regulations will set out the requirements for the skills and qualifications, including police representatives.
The College of Policing’s professionalising public protection programme is developing resources to make sure that the police workforce has enough of the right professionals, with the right competences, qualifications and experience, to work in multi-agency child protection teams. There are good examples of police forces providing expert staff for child protection work: Thames Valley Police deploys experienced senior police representatives to its local multi-agency safeguarding hubs, including detective sergeant equivalents. They are decision-makers and offer expertise to support their police representatives at all levels. Thames Valley will take this approach to staffing multi-agency child protection teams as well.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification. When I was speaking, she said that special constables would not be represented, and I think she has said that again just now. In the letter she sent to all Peers on 7 January, she said that, to Clause 3, the Government are laying two amendments to broaden which practitioners from the police can be deployed to multi-agency child protection teams so that it includes police, staff and special constables. Can the Minister explain that?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I regret that we included special constables. Given the criteria that will be set out in regulations for the level of expertise, experience and skills necessary to be part of these teams, I could not envisage a situation in which a volunteer special constable would be an appropriate part of these teams. I was about to reiterate that we are setting out in regulations the skills, knowledge and qualifications that all practitioners nominated in multi-agency child protection teams will need, and that these regulations will be subject to public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. In that way, we will be able to be clear about the types of people from those safeguarding partners who would be appropriate to be part of the teams.
Amendment 11 seeks clarity on the support that multi-agency child protection teams will provide to local authorities to keep children safe from harm. I have listened to requests to be more specific about what these teams will do in practice. That is why, last week, the department published a policy statement to give clarity about the scope of regulations for the operation of these teams. I hope noble Lords have had the chance to look at that. The statement makes it clear that the teams will deliver all statutory child protection functions, from strategy meetings to conferencing. The teams will lead investigations and make decisions about what needs to happen to keep children safe from harm and then hold agencies to account for delivering support. I hope the statement reassures noble Lords that we are working closely with multi-agency partners, and will continue to work with noble Lords and others, as we develop the regulations through public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny to make sure that these teams are the very best they can be.
Amendments 15 and 16 seek to allow the social worker and education practitioner in multi-agency child protection teams to operate on behalf of multiple local authorities, where teams are combined across local authority boundaries. As I clarified in Committee, local authority professionals in the teams must remain responsible for children in their area. This ensures that the local authority with statutory responsibility for the child continues to be accountable and that children do not fall between the cracks. Collaboration across areas and between practitioners will happen. In fact, Clause 4 creates a clear duty on all practitioners to share information to safeguard or promote the welfare of the child, regardless of local authority boundaries.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I know this is semantics, but the point that I made about pathfinders is important. The pathfinders are trying out different approaches within the criteria and the framework set for them. They are discovering, as we suggested at some length when we talked about examples in Committee, different ways of doing things. They are also ensuring that we are doing this on a basis that will have the right professionals in the right place so that children do not fall between gaps—and in fact will actively close the gaps that exist within the system now—and from which we will continue to learn. I will come to the point about timing in a moment, because that is important.
I was just coming to the point about the round table with pathfinder directors of children’s services and representatives from each of the regions that I held to discuss the opportunities and challenges in implementing these new teams. I reassure noble Lords that I said specifically to my team in setting up the round table that I was interested in hearing not only from people who thought that everything was going well but from those who might be more sceptical as well. I have to say that I heard overwhelmingly from pathfinders that, while changing the approach to child protection has been challenging, the benefits of multi-agency expertise and working are already evidenced in the decisions and outcomes for children. For example, areas shared positive examples of innovative whole-family work enabled by multi-agency collaboration, and noted that more empowering and transparent practice has given partners confidence in the approach.
I want to take a moment to reassure noble Lords that we recognise the scale of the ask here. This is a complex national system reform that requires leadership, co-operation and commitment from agencies, and that requires us—the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, is right—to learn from the pathfinders. By the way, I undertake to ensure as far as possible that, as we continue, we are able to provide some of the evidence that the noble Baroness identified.
That is why, through the families first partnership programme, we are working, for example, with three police force areas—the Met, Thames Valley and West Mercia—to identify how we can create multi-agency child protection teams that align with policing footprints. This work includes over 40 local authority areas working together to create effective delivery approaches, and we will bring into that work representatives from health and education as well.
Finally, on delay, it is not the intention—assuming this Bill passes through both Houses—that the multi-agency child protection teams will instantly need to spring into action. It is not even the case, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, said, that we expect them to be fully in place during this calendar year. I want to reassure noble Lords that the provisions will not come into force before late 2027, following public consultation and further scrutiny of regulations by Parliament. We also have a comprehensive quarterly monitoring process to measure progress, impact and outcomes as the Families First Programme rolls out nationally and are working across sectors to share learning about what works. I just ask noble Lords not to slam the brakes on an important reform for which I think there has been considerable support, and on which work is already under way.
I turn to Amendments 250 and 251, on resourcing, funding and effective delivery of these teams. To be clear, as we were in Committee, safeguarding partners already have a joint and equal duty to work together to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area. The statutory guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children is clear about the expectations on safeguarding partners in making these local arrangements. Guidance will be updated in line with the new regulations to clarify what this means for delivering multi-agency child protection teams. Therefore, resource and funding are already agreed locally, and this will be the same for multi-agency child protection teams.
Once again, we are learning from the pathfinders. For instance, some areas are funding new roles; others are using existing or seconded resources, and some are using agreements between agencies to pool resources for multi-agency child protection teams. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seemed to suggest that it was wrong for different approaches to be taken in different areas. That is precisely the type of flexibility and local recognition of responsibilities in the way teams have been set up that is important.
The Children Act 2004 means that safeguarding partners can already work with relevant agencies, such as probation and youth offending teams, to support their arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Clause 3 will supplement these local arrangements and allow safeguarding partners to choose from a sub-list set out in regulations, which relevant agencies will work most closely with to support the multi-agency child protection team functions, agreeing this locally through co-operation memorandums. We say more on this in the published policy statement.
In Committee, I outlined the £523 million of funding made available in 2025-26 for national rollout of our children’s social care reform. Since then, we have confirmed a further £2.4 billion over the next three years. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that this is a significant and important investment that shows our commitment to reforming the system, to reforming it right and to improving protection for children. I hope, therefore, with the reassurance and clarification that I provided, that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I wonder if the noble Baroness could clarify two things. I apologise if I missed the first, but she went through a series of expectations for qualifications for staff in the multi-agency child protection teams and I did not hear her confirm that those would align with the intercollegiate document, so I would be grateful if she could confirm that in relation to health staff. Also, I wrote down that she said “these teams”— I was not sure whether that was the multi-agency child protection teams, the early help teams or both—will not be implemented until the end of 2027, which feels later than was previously projected. I wonder if she could clarify that.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
On the point about the NHS document on intercollegiate guidance, the point I was making was that we believe the provisions are already set out in the Working Together requirements. We will be able, of course, to set them out more fully in regulations; I am pretty confident about that. If I have gone beyond where I should have, I will make that clear.
When I referred to teams, I was in some ways shortening my speaking note. I think every time I did so, I was referring to multi-agency child protection teams. The point I was making was that many of those teams will already be set up and operating as part of the pathfinder process. But in recognition of the scale of the challenge, we are clear that we will take time to get the regulations right and continue the learning from the pathfinders, and to do that in a way that ensures we can all be confident that they will be successful. That is the reason for the timescale I set out.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness very much for that clarification, as I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. I also acknowledge the Government’s financial commitment to this programme.
In relation to my Amendment 6, the Minister said that a child protection plan should end only when there is a multi-agency child protection case conference. One could argue that under the Government’s proposed system, where the same social worker will work with a family but also chair that conference, there is the need for fresh eyes to look at those cases of very young children who are at risk of not having adequate protection and are not nearly so visible to society as those over the age of five, because obviously they are not in school. I am not convinced by the arguments the Minister made.
I am amazed that the Minister regrets she put special constables in the letter. I can imagine she is feeling a bit irritated about that, but I think a lot of people who will have received the letter are not in the Chamber, so I hope she will write to clarify that special constables will not be eligible, because that looked like a cost-cutting measure, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, alluded to.
In relation to cross-border work, I agree that one should not in any way blur accountability, and Amendments 15 and 16 aimed to introduce some more flexibility. But as the Minister knows, families move around a lot, particularly in London, so having rigid boundaries will be unworkable and more flexibility will need to emerge in future.
Turning to Amendment 17, whether they are pathfinders or pilots is semantics. I hear and absolutely believe what the Minister says about the Government seeing increasing commitments from some local authorities, but she is also aware that some very senior, experienced and committed people who want to see the best for children also have specific concerns. This was before my time—I am not for a second suggesting I would have got it right—but those who were involved in the special educational needs reforms and who introduced the Children and Families Act did so in the same spirit: to address an urgent problem that needed an urgent solution. However, without proper piloting that has ended up in a place that nobody intended. The spirit of my Amendment 17, together with the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is to avoid that happening again.
As I say, I am not convinced by the Minister’s explanation in relation to Amendment 6. We are talking about 65% of child deaths and serious harm occurring to that age group, so I would like to test the opinion of the House.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for his focus on bringing forward these amendments. They are obviously well intentioned, but His Majesty’s loyal Opposition harbour certain reservations. We of course recognise that safe- guarding arrangements should, wherever possible, be consistent across different childcare providers and settings. Many families both depend on and place a huge amount of trust in early years providers and nurseries. Therefore, approaches to safeguarding should be well co-ordinated and the relevant staff involved should be trained to a level where they feel fully confident and able to engage with safeguarding partnerships.
Indeed, only last month, Ofsted warned that early opportunities to identify children with special educational needs and disabilities are being missed. This can result in a lack of understanding of individual children’s situations, meaning that schools do not always take a flexible approach to their behaviour policies or make reasonable adjustments. There is of course a clear need for early years training to adapt to this emerging reality.
However, as was so eloquently put in Committee by my noble friend Lady Spielman, former Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills, there are key concerns about the capacity of providers to implement the proposed changes: namely, the majority of schools that on inspection fall down on safeguarding are small schools, primaries and special schools that struggle to cope with the complexity.
Given this, we are concerned about whether the amendments are feasible. While we believe in a co-ordinated, multi-agency approach, the inclusion of early years groups and nurseries to these partnerships may risk adding further layers of complexity that would not necessarily be of help. Nor would we wish the lines of responsibility for safeguarding to be blurred between ever more partners, to a point where it is no longer a functioning or focused local safeguarding partnership. No one would want the unintended result to be that safeguarding does not improve but administrative capacity declines.
These concerns remain about the implementation and impact in practice of the noble Lord’s amendments. Before the 2024 election, the Department for Education committed to setting out a timetable for a consultation covering education’s role in safeguarding. The Education Committee in the other place has recently launched a call for evidence as part of its ongoing inquiry to examine how safeguarding can be strengthened in nurseries, for childminders and in other early years settings under the early years foundation stage. There is yet to be concrete evidence to support the proposals here, and we feel that it would be potentially pre-emptive to introduce such amendments now.
These are obviously important issues which need to be consulted on further. We look forward to acting on the findings, as and when they are brought to your Lordships’ House. We support the aims of the amendments to support a holistic and thorough approach to safeguarding arrangements, but that approach must be evidence-based to ensure that providers have sufficient capacity and resources for this to work in practice.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
On group 3, particularly Amendments 7 and 8 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, let me be clear that I fully recognise the vital importance of ensuring that every education setting and childcare provider is fully embedded in local safeguarding arrangements. We are acutely aware of the appalling incidences of abuse that have occurred within certain nursery chains, and no one in this Chamber underestimates the gravity of those failures.
While I cannot comment on the specifics of ongoing reviews, I know that our thoughts will remain firmly with the children and families affected. I extend my thanks to the commitment of the honourable Members Munira Wilson, Tom Morrison and Tulip Siddiq, who have been powerful champions for the families and children affected. Their contribution underscores the importance of the reforms the Bill takes forward. It is precisely because we take this so seriously that we must avoid the temptation to duplicate duties unnecessarily, or to legislate in ways that create complexity rather than strengthen safeguarding practice.
I emphasise that the system already places clear multi-agency safeguarding duties on all registered early years settings through existing regulations. Clause 2 reinforces and clarifies these obligations by placing a duty on safeguarding partners to include education and childcare settings in their arrangements, and ensures that providers continue to take part in safeguarding activities. In short, the settings in scope of Amendments 7 and 8 are already captured by the legal framework and measures in this clause. Adding an extra layer of statutory designation risks creating legislative duplication with no clear operational benefit.
In addition, robust accountability is already in place, including through independent inspection and statutory guidance under the Children Act 2004. This ensures that relevant agencies participate fully in safeguarding arrangements and are supported to do so. Additional legislative compliance conditions, such as linking participation to funding or registration, are unnecessary. The existing framework, combined with the enhancements delivered through Clause 2, gives safeguarding partners the tools they need to secure meaningful and consistent co-operation across the sector.
I turn to Amendments 9 and 10, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. As he set out, the overarching aim of these amendments is important, and it is already recognised by the Government. Amendment 9 seeks to make specific provision for Ofsted inspection and reporting on nursery chains. Amendment 10 requires the statutory framework to be revised so that nursery groups must ensure that their safeguarding leads and staff are trained in, and engaged with, local safeguarding arrangements across all their settings. I hope I can reassure noble Lords that we are committed to reviewing nursery chain regulation, to improve market oversight and the quality and safety of early years education and childcare.
This commitment was first made in the Government’s recent Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life strategy. It was reconfirmed in the Statement that the Secretary of State made in the House of Commons in response to Operation Lanark, and I am happy to reconfirm it today in response to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey.
On Amendment 9, I appreciate the concern of noble Lords regarding Ofsted inspection of early years groups and chains so that safeguarding problems that span multiple settings can be identified and addressed at group level. Although Ofsted can already take action against settings that are linked by the same registered person, we are in complete agreement that we need further consideration of bespoke powers for the regulation of nursery chains to better safeguard the youngest and most vulnerable children. To that end, we have committed to working with Ofsted to review the regulation of early years chains. We expect this will very likely lead to recommendations relating to inspecting and reporting on chains. However, careful consideration is needed to ensure that we get this right before we make legislative change.
On Amendment 10, again, I appreciate the concern of noble Lords regarding safeguarding training in early years settings. In September 2025, we introduced new safeguarding training requirements within the Early Years Foundation Stage statutory framework. All early years staff must be trained in line with these, and designated safeguarding leads must know their local child protection procedures and how to liaise with local statutory children’s services agencies and local safeguarding partners. Any new requirements which would need to be considered at a chain level will form part of the previously mentioned nursery chain regulation review; they will be in scope of that review.
Given that, I hope that I have addressed the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Storey. He is right—particularly in the light of some of the devastating events that he referenced—to have brought these issues to the notice of this House. I hope that, given my reassurances, he feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her fulsome response. Like her, I have concerns—it is almost the opposite position to that of my noble friend Lord Addington—about large nursery chains, nursery businesses and large groups of nurseries run by a business where often decisions are made away from that individual nursery.
I should say that I was a head teacher and had a nursery of 100 places. If there was any issue, I was always on hand to deal with it and support my staff. I am wondering whether, if you have a nursery business of several dozen nurseries, you can have that immediate impact of change that might be required.
I add that after hearing about the parents in these two tragic cases, you feel helpless, and you want to do something. I pay tribute to them for, while grieving for their child, coming forward with ideas to improve the safeguarding arrangements. It is amazing that they can think of other children, having faced the loss of their own child.
I am very grateful to the Minister. She recognises the problem of those large chains and that we should work with, or talk to, Ofsted about how we can bring forward some recommendations in the future. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(d) a constable or relevant police employee who— (i) is nominated by the chief officer of police for a police area any part of which falls within the area of the local authority, and(ii) has experience in child protection.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and my other amendment to clause 3, at page 4, line 20, would broaden the range of persons with policing functions who may be nominated to a multi-agency child protection team, and requires a person nominated by a chief officer of police to have experience in child protection.
““relevant police employee” means—(a) a person (other than a constable) who is—(i) employed, or engaged to provide services, for the purposes of a body of constables, and(ii) under the direction and control of a person who has the direction and control of a body of constables, or(b) a person who is—(i) employed by the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a police authority, and(ii) under the direction and control of a chief officer of police;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would define “relevant police employee” for the purposes of section 16EA of the Children Act 2004, inserted by clause 3, and as amended by my other amendment to clause 3, at page 4 line 1.
Lord Storey (LD)
I will speak to the amendments in reverse order. We very much support having a single unique identifier. Unless the pilot of using the NHS number causes some unforeseen problems—we hope that that would not happen—we believe that it makes absolute sense to use the NHS number to link health and education. It is also important for children’s safeguarding: we need to know where they are, what is happening to them and when they change schools. It rightly brings added responsibility to schools, headteachers and governors.
We also believe that Amendment 19 is important. When there is a multi-agency approach, it is important that information and understanding are shared between different teams when cases are passed between them. This amendment rightly highlights the problem and comes up with a way forward.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We are cooking with gas today. We are all fresh—at this point.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, there has been strong interest in provisions to improve information sharing for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. I agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and others that information sharing is a necessary but not sufficient determinant of whether we have an effective practice. As others have identified, it is enormously important and has too often been lacking in cases where children have come to harm. It must be a basis for action.
The call for improved information sharing includes the long-requested introduction of a consistent identifier for children which mirrors provision for adults introduced as far back as 2015. As we have heard, there is broad support for these measures, with concerns focused on ensuring that they can be implemented successfully, appropriately and as soon as possible. The government amendments in this group aim to provide further clarity.
Amendment 19, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to require safeguarding partners to establish practical multi-agency arrangements for initial information sharing before Section 47 thresholds can be determined. As the amendment suggests, clear information sharing processes are crucial. However, as I have previously suggested, that needs to be followed by action, which is why safeguarding partners must already publish their multi agency arrangements, including how they identify and respond to children’s needs. Therefore, the requirements set out in the amendment would duplicate existing requirements. Local leaders must retain flexibility to establish effective systems for their context, including how information flows between services.
I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that it is neither our intention nor our belief that the legislation as currently drafted implies a one-way flow only—it does not. It determines precisely the sort of flows of information, backwards and forwards, that the noble Baroness rightly identified as fundamental to this being a success.
In addition to the existing requirements to publish multi-agency arrangements, prior to commencement we will consult on and publish statutory guidance, including a template data-sharing agreement, to help partners agree information flows and ensure timely and consistent information sharing within and across agencies. I hope that that provides the assurance that the noble Baroness was looking for.
I support the sentiment behind Amendment 23, also from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran: to broaden the consistent identifier regulation-making powers to ensure scrutiny of how the consistent identifier operates and which number is used. Government Amendment 21, introducing an information standard, and government Amendment 26, introducing a code of practice, also support the effective operation of the consistent identifier but are more focused.
As I already set out in Committee, we are piloting the NHS number only. We want to be assured of the benefits and information governance before naming a consistent identifier in legislation.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 4, page 7, lines 11 to 14.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove provision no longer needed because of the protection provided by the new general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and which came into force on 20 August 2025.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, made a compelling case for the value of child contact centres in and of themselves and for the importance of having clear minimum standards, and achieving that through additional training and accreditation. I felt that the Minister gave a good answer in Committee on this specific case, when she highlighted the role of the National Association of Child Contact Centres. I do not in any way disagree with the aims of the amendment, but, having worked in a charity that did a lot of training and accreditation, my experience is that we can place too much weight on it and what it can achieve.
The point the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, made about unregistered contact centres is extremely important. Anything the Minister can say that would ensure that courts and magistrates have absolute clarity about whether a centre is or is not registered would be critical. If we are going to go down this route, having simple links for contact centres with their local specialist services, whether they be specialist domestic abuse services, drug and alcohol services, or whatever the issue is, might be the simplest and most effective way of making sure that these centres are as safe as they can possibly be.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. It would require all providers of child contact centre services to be accredited by the National Association of Child Contact Centres to national standards set by the Secretary of State. In responding to this, I start by recognising, as all noble Lords have, the vital role played by the National Association of Child Contact Centres and the many dedicated child contact centres across England and Wales. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, made clear, their work is fundamental to the family justice system, providing supervised or supported contact in a safe, neutral environment, allowing children to maintain a meaningful relationship with a non-resident parent. The commitment of staff and volunteers to safeguarding and creating a child-focused space is invaluable. I express my sincere appreciation for the work that they and the NACCC undertake.
I understand the motivation behind this amendment, but the Government do not believe that it is necessary and are already responding to some of the points made in this debate and in the debate in Committee. The NACCC already accredits the majority of centres in England and Wales, with research showing that unaccredited centres are uncommon. In preparing for this, I asked the obvious question: how many unaccredited child contact centres are there? Interestingly, the Cordis Bright research that the noble Baroness referred to found that there was only a small number of unaccredited contact centres, but the report did not provide a figure or estimate for the number of unaccredited contact centres. When those working in accredited child contact centres who took part in the research were asked about unaccredited contact centres, they indicated that such centres were few in number. This may well suggest that we have made progress, due to the efforts of the NACCC, in ensuring that many more child contact centres are accredited by it.
Following the meeting that noble Lords had with my noble friend Lady Levitt, which has been mentioned by several noble Lords, a range of work has been commissioned and is being taken forward by officials at the Ministry of Justice. One of those pieces of work is for officials to work with the NACCC to further understand how we can identify the number of unaccredited contact centres in England and Wales.
Also following from that meeting, other streams of work are taking place that will, I hope, provide reassurance to noble Lords on some of the specific issues that they have raised. These include, first, exploring the possibility of introducing a protocol or similar mechanism for mediators to ensure that they refer families only to accredited centres. Secondly, several noble Lords raised an important point about ensuring that those in child contact centres are suitably trained. Another piece of work is carrying out a further review of the mandatory training already in place for child contact centre staff and volunteers in order to ensure that it is as good as it can be. As I have already said, we are developing a more robust understanding of where any unaccredited centres are and of any concerns that may exist in relation to them.
While I completely understand that the amendment is well intentioned, I do not believe that mandatory accreditation is the best way to approach the issues that have been raised. The NACCC already provides effective leadership and oversight to the majority of centres. Further to this, the work the Ministry of Justice is now taking forward will provide additional reassurance in this space. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment, given the good work that is already being undertaken in relation to the points that noble Lords have raised.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, what action can be taken against a centre that appears to be quite dubious and unaccredited? While the amendment is not being accepted, there is recognition that there may be activities going on which are effectively underground. The children who may be having contact with a family member—usually a parent—in such a situation might be exposed to quite serious risk.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I do not believe that there is evidence to suggest that that is the case. All the research suggests that there is a very small number of unaccredited centres. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby made an important point about how it is possible to identify centres that are accredited. The vast majority of them are. Given that it is clear that the NACCC accreditation scheme covers the vast majority, I would have thought that that is the appropriate route. As I have said, we are going to ensure that there is a protocol for mediators that means they use only accredited routes. I would have thought that that would also have been the case for courts.
An unaccredited child contact centre might be used in limited circumstances for specific, short-term purposes because of the individual circumstances of the case—for example, in order to limit the travel that a child had to do in particular circumstances. Local authorities are under a legal duty to ensure that such provision meets all statutory safeguarding requirements and promotes the child’s welfare, so there is another level of assurance in the system. I will refer to my noble friend Lady Levitt the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby about the ability of courts to always be able to determine the nature of the contact centres where they are referring children. He raised a reasonable point, and I am sure all of us would want to ensure that it is covered.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
Before my noble friend sits down, I just want to be clear about one aspect. She talked about mediators recommending only contact centres that are registered. Of course, very often in court, particularly in private cases, there are no mediators; there are people self-representing, very often men. They are the ones who propose contact centres, which may or may not be registered. The point I was making was that it is not that straightforward for a court to find out the nature of the contact centre that is being recommended.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
No, and this was the point I was accepting when I said I would ensure that our noble friend Lady Levitt is informed about it from this debate. As I have said, I am sure we will want to give more thought to how the labelling, almost, of the accreditation that does exist for the vast majority of contact centres can perhaps be made more obvious to courts in the sorts of circumstances that my noble friend identified.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the contributions to the debate on this amendment. It seems to me that the debate has exposed two possible problems. First, there is no sanction for the creation or use of an unregistered contact centre. Secondly, there is a gap in the knowledge of what is available, whether registered or unregistered. The Cordis Bright report was aware of that gap, and I suggest it is a worrying gap. It may well be, as Cordis Bright reported, that there is only limited evidence as to the prevalence of non-accredited centres, but it is still a small number, which could do quite a lot of damage.
That said, I think it is important to understand that the courts, when ordering contact, will always apply the protocols that are laid down by the president of the Family Division. I am also reassured by the Minister’s indication that mediators and indeed, possibly, others who have responsibility for guiding people towards contact centres, will be required to use only accredited centres.
We are not working from a blank page; there is already an excellent network of centres. On that basis, and because of the work that the Minister has been good enough to indicate is being undertaken, particularly by the Ministry of Justice, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will respond briefly, given the hour. Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, concerns implementing a government child neglect strategy, and I absolutely understand his aim in advocating for this. It is right to raise issues concerning the neglect of children, but in my own experience, neglect almost always coexists with other forms of abuse or harm. I fear that focusing on one element of a child’s experience might lead professionals to overlook others that are frequently interlinked. There are real risks with that approach, so we on these Benches do not support the amendment.
I genuinely look forward to the Minister’s reply to Amendment 97 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. We had powerful speeches in favour of what has happened in Wales, and, I would argue, equally important speeches from my noble friends Lord Jackson and Lady Meyer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. These reminded the House of the current law and raised important balancing points about some of the impacts of the Welsh legislation. I am sympathetic to the push by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for transparency and understanding the data as the Government navigate this very difficult area.
On a smacking ban, the only point that has not been raised this evening, and which worries me—I am sure that nobody would disagree with this—is that children also suffer terribly from psychological violence, emotional abuse or coercion from their parents. The point was made early in the debate about the importance of parenting programmes and positive support for parents. I hope that the Minister can talk about the Best Start in Life hubs, and say that the Government are finding routes, which we all want to see, to support parents without having to criminalise behaviour.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, we have had a good debate in this group on new clauses regarding a national child neglect strategy and the removal of the reasonable punishment review in Wales. I will also speak to three government amendments that will ensure that providers of regulated children’s social care settings or youth detention accommodation are held accountable for their role in the ill-treatment or wilful neglect of under-18s in their care. As we have heard in the debate, this group of amendments raises important issues around child safety and well-being—areas to which the Government are wholly committed.
Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a national child neglect strategy. Protecting children from all forms of abuse and neglect is a key priority for this Government. Neglect accounts for 50% of all child protection plans in England, and we know that it is often cumulative. Harm builds up over time if not addressed early. This is why, along with measures in this Bill and backed by over £2.4 billion of investment, our focus is on strengthening multi-agency family help and child protection through national reforms, and statutory guidance that explicitly references neglect as a safeguarding and child protection concern throughout. These practical steps will support practitioners to identify and respond effectively to children and families who need support, including where neglect is present.
We also know that poverty can increase the risk of neglect, although I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that being poor does not imply that you will neglect your children. It does, of course, make your life more difficult. That is why the recently published child poverty strategy prioritises early intervention and integrated support for families, addressing stressors such as parental mental health difficulties, parental substance misuse and domestic abuse—factors that often co-occur with neglect.
I acknowledge the strong case made on this topic by the Liberal Democrats, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, when we met to talk about it. The Government have heard a range of representations on this issue, and I can commit to the House that we will continue to work with key stakeholders—including the Government’s What Works Network, Foundations, and the national child safeguarding practice review panel—on specific matters relating to child neglect, helping to shape our understanding of this complex issue.