Curriculum and Assessment Review

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I too begin by thanking Professor Becky Francis for her Curriculum and Assessment Review report. There is much in this final report that we on these Benches can welcome. Indeed, quite a few of the ideas bear a distinctly Liberal Democrat imprint: renewed emphasis on a broad and balanced curriculum; the recognition that every child must be offered both rigour and breadth; and the Government’s acceptance of the need for more digital, arts-based and citizenship education.

However, while the ambition is high, the risks are real, particularly for those children whose life chances depend on a system that works for all, not only for the privileged few. If we are serious about social mobility, these reforms must be equally serious about substance, delivery and equity.

I will speak a little more about social mobility and equality of opportunity—an issue close to my heart given my lived experience of the UK’s education system. The Francis review rightly emphasises that the national curriculum must be for every child, and that one of its purposes is

“to ensure that … all young people are not held back by background or circumstance”.

Yet the danger is that without an underpinning investment and workforce plan, these reforms will continue existing inequalities.

Let us consider triple science. The ambition to give more students access to deeper science study is admirable. However, I am not sure whether the Minister is aware that across England, a quarter of state schools have no specialist physics teacher. Without addressing the recruitment and retention crisis in science and other shortage subjects, we risk fundamentally disadvantaging children in less-resourced schools, many of whom are from more deprived backgrounds.

Similarly, while the arts and digital education are flagged in the final report, the parallel removal of bursaries for music teacher training is concerning. Rising teacher vacancies in music and creative subjects, and underinvestment in enrichment, threaten to drive a two-tier curriculum: one for those who attend well-resourced schools, another for everyone else.

I turn to the structure of performance measures and subject choices. The scrapping of the English baccalaureate is not in itself a problem; the problem lies in how its replacement may unintentionally narrow choice rather than broaden it. The new proposals around Progress 8 reform, with dedicated slots for science and breadth subjects, may incentivise schools to pick the cheapest route to satisfy buckets rather than ensuring rich subject access. Our schools will be under pressure to hit headline measures, which may lead schools to steer pupils away from the arts, languages and physical education.

If we are serious about social mobility, we cannot allow the curriculum for large numbers of children to become a bare-minimum choice which gives them fewer options than their more fortunate peers. A child in a deprived area should not be streamed into the narrowest option simply because the school’s performance indicators push them there.

Finally, I will touch on the issues of teacher supply, funding and implementation; they all require teachers, time, training and money. Without proper workforce planning, the ambitions of the final report will collapse under the weight of underresourced schools. The Government must clarify how the reforms are to be funded; how many additional teachers will be recruited in shortage areas; and how all schools, regardless of location, will be supported to deliver the new entitlement. If a child in Sheffield, or anywhere else outside a privileged postcode, is left behind because their school cannot deliver the new curriculum, the promise of a “world-class curriculum for all” becomes a hollow slogan.

Before I conclude, I would like to pose a number of questions to the Minister that I hope she will address in her response to your Lordships’ House. First, what workforce strategy does the Department for Education have in place specifically to deal with the specialist teacher shortages in subjects such as physics, music and languages, given that many schools in disadvantaged areas currently have none?

Also, what assessment has the department made of the impact of narrowing the curriculum on students from lower-income backgrounds? How will the reforms not widen the attainment gap? How will the Government monitor and evaluate whether the new curriculum and assessment changes improve both attainment and life chances for students from underrepresented groups, and will data be published by socioeconomic backgrounds, regions, disability status and other key equality indicators?

Can the Minister also explain why the Government have not progressed with all of the Francis review’s recommendations?

Finally, this report offers not just change but an opportunity to build an education system that is truly inclusive, ambitious and equitable. However, ambition must be matched by resources, rights must be matched by access and the reforms must be implemented with a resolve to ensure that no child is left behind. If we wish to talk of social mobility, we must mean it; if we wish to talk about opportunity, we must support it; and if we wish to talk of education for all, that must include children from communities such as mine in Sheffield, where aspiration is in abundance but where barriers remain real. The proposals are good, but only if we deliver them properly. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

I start by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, to his new role on the Front Bench. I will do my best to cover the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord—although I note that, for the second time in a row in responding to a Statement, I have less time to respond than the two Opposition Front-Benchers took to ask me questions.

I start by thanking Professor Becky Francis and those who contributed through her panel and in the consultation. This is a review driven by evidence, informed by data and which has relied on input from experts, the sector and the public. The national curriculum ensures a common entitlement to share in the core wisdom that we as a nation most value. An ambition for a curriculum of high standards was of course led by James Callaghan in his great education debate and delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, in the first national curriculum in 1988.

Successive Governments have understood that, as the world changes, so must the curriculum that prepares our young people for success in that world. That is why this is a national curriculum that will ensure both rock-solid foundations in oracy, reading, writing and maths but also the development of the sorts of skills necessary for young people to be able to succeed in the world today.

On the particular points about accountability in relation to the EBacc, while I can understand the objectives of the EBacc, unfortunately, it did not achieve them. We have seen no increase in the numbers of students aged 16 to 19, for example, who took up subjects focused on in the EBacc. The levels of students taking modern foreign language GCSE increased to begin with but is now at broadly the same level as it was in 2009-10. Of course, the result has been to narrow the curriculum and ease out arts and creative subjects.

In relation to Progress 8, we will consult on how to continue to provide a strong academic core—which we believe our proposals will do—while balancing breadth and student choice. Languages and humanities of course continue to be incentivised in the proposed Progress 8 accountability measure.

On the important point made by the noble Baroness opposite about attendance and behaviour, I am sure she will recognise the work this Government have continued to do—some of it undoubtedly based on work she did—to improve attendance. I am sure she will welcome the fact that children were in school for 5 million more days in the most recent academic year than the year previously.

This is a substantial change, as noble Lords have said, and that is why we are making only changes that are essential. We will support teachers through the resources made available through the Oak Academy, including AI learning assistance to support teachers. There are 2,300 more teachers already in our secondary and special schools as a result of our focus on delivering 6,500 more teachers. We have seen an increase in the number of music teachers entering initial teacher training, which is one of the reasons for the changes in the bursary. Of course, 1,300 fewer teachers are leaving the profession.

We will provide sufficient time to implement this by producing the new national curriculum in spring 2027, with the first teaching to commence in 2028. That will provide four terms’ worth of preparation to deliver the national curriculum—more than was the case the last time it was changed.

On triple science, we will work with schools to see what is necessary to enable them to provide that entitlement for all pupils. For example, we are already providing support for non-physics science teachers to teach physics.

The curriculum has not been updated for over a decade, and parents want one that is fit for the future. We need a knowledge-rich education, which is central to ensuring high and rising standards for every child, and a curriculum that will help children shape their own futures and the future of our country. It must include digital skills for a digital age and the speaking and listening skills that employers value. Music, sport, art and drama will no longer be the privilege of a lucky few. We will have standards that will enable all children to benefit and to deliver their potential, whatever their starting point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. I do not think there is very much I need to add to that.

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much welcome this new curriculum and its emphasis on widening the scope to engage more pupils. Does the Minister agree with me that when the Opposition talk about dumbing down and powerful knowledge, the fact is that the current curriculum fails to engage far too many pupils? There is a 20% persistence absence that rises to 35% for disadvantaged pupils and pupils with SEND. We need a rigorous, knowledge-based curriculum but one that addresses the interests, the aspirations and the subjects of a great variety of our pupils, who can see themselves in the curriculum, see the diversity, learn about the arts, financial education and media literacy, and be provided with the skills they will need in the 21st century.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right; we need students to have the deep knowledge that is necessary to succeed in the world, but we also need them to have the skills that the modern world demands of them. This new curriculum will deliver both and, in doing that, will engage more students, as my noble friend says, to achieve success, both for themselves and for the future of the country.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, the arts sector is hugely grateful that the EBacc has gone, and I think that needs to be said. However, does the Minister agree that it is going to take a lot of work to turn around the culture in relation to the arts in schools that has been in place since 2010 and, importantly, repair the arts infrastructure? This is a question of resources and specialist schoolteachers—which the Minister has mentioned—but the increase is from a low base, so in that light the decision to axe all the arts ITT bursaries seems to many of us unfathomable. The music hub landscape is in a mess and, in the wider landscape, the music course at the University of Nottingham is just the latest to be suspended. Getting rid of the EBacc is a good start, but the Government need to do a lot more work to turn this around in relation to the arts in schools.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Earl that a high-quality arts education must not be just for the privileged few. It is ironic that the arts that have been forced out of state school curricula are those that are so often advertised in independent schools’ offers. It is an essential part of the broad and rich education that every child deserves. We will revitalise arts education for a reformed curriculum and will support teachers.

In improving the art and design curriculum, we will ensure that all pupils are taught the core knowledge and skills to develop their own creative practice and to study the work of a wider range of artists and designers. I have already partly responded to the point about teachers. I will add that our new national centre for arts and music education will provide support for schools and teachers to deliver the reformed curriculum, as will our continued investment in music hubs to support pupils to make good progress in instrumental performance.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, like others, we warmly welcome much in the report, particularly on languages and the arts, as we have already heard. I want to raise one thing mentioned on page 37 about the technical awards. We have not had any briefings or debates on V-levels; they have suddenly appeared as if from the blue. The Government should have learned from the T-levels that it takes a long time to introduce and embed a new vocational qualification. What is wrong with BTECs? They are understood by everybody. They are understood by pupils and even by parents—ye gods, that is a triumph. Universities and employers all understand BTECs. They have served people very well. T-levels have not really got properly embedded yet. Why on earth are the Government involved in embarking in something new when there is something perfectly good already there?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

There will be plenty of opportunity for people to have their say about V-levels, not least in the consultation that we published alongside the skills White Paper. It has never quite been my approach to say, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. There are improvements that we can make to the standard of our vocational education. T-levels are now achieving considerable success, both in the outcomes for students and for a broad range of students in terms of their prior attainment. As we carry out that consultation, I am very happy to carry on talking about where we think V-levels fit in the important range of choices and options for students aged 16 to 19.

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords—

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, we are living in an increasingly complex world, and the study of religious education is critical in helping young people to navigate it. The need for understanding and dialogue across different faith groups and worldviews is increasingly obvious. The Church of England has welcomed the scrapping of the EBacc, because it has positive implications for religious education. At present, schools with a religious character provide the most comprehensive RE in the country. Will the Government commit to ensuring that these new proposals do not undermine this or the historic role that churches have in providing education in England?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I will start—seeing as this is my first opportunity—by congratulating the right reverend Prelate, who is soon to be elevated. The Government firmly believe in the importance of religious education. Good-quality RE can develop children’s knowledge of the values and traditions of Britain and other countries, and foster understanding among different faiths and cultures. That is why it remains compulsory for all state-funded schools, including academies and free schools, at all key stages. We welcome the review’s recommendation that Vanessa Ogden continue her work with the sector to seek to reach consensus on what a national curriculum for RE might look like. We look forward to seeing the outcome of that work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)]

I am really grateful for the noble Lord’s protection and championing. It is always an honour to give way to the future Archbishop of Canterbury.

Can the Minister say more about the new oracy framework? Of course, young people need to be able to speak as well as read and write. Can she give us an assurance that, in preparing the framework, her department will work closely with the experts in this field, the English Speaking Union, whose work this has been for the last 107 years?

Secondly, I welcome the focus on building media literacy. The number of young people who do not read a newspaper and do not listen to the broadcast media is alarming. Their information comes through social media, with its adjusted algorithms. Within that, can the Minister give an unequivocal assurance that the benchmark for independent, impartial broadcasting in this country—and, I would say, around the world—is the BBC? Whatever the short-term squall, the BBC is a huge jewel in Britain’s crown.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I can give the noble Baroness the assurance she asks for on the development of the oracy framework. As she has identified, being able to speak and listen is an enormously important skill that employers say they need young people to have. On the point about media literacy, as she says, in a world in which young people need to distinguish misinformation and disinformation, it is enormously important that they are supported with media literacy. That is why media literacy will be embedded in English, in history and in citizenship. I share her view about the importance of the BBC, both at home and abroad.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Curriculum and Assessment Review, particularly the removal of the EBacc, which has damaged the provision of arts and music education in state schools. I also welcome the emphasis on both media literacy and music provision in the curriculum. It is important to highlight the significant inequalities in access to music in state schools. The annexe to the review highlights that in 2023-24, one in four young people may not have been able to access a music qualification at key stage 4 in their school, even if they wanted to.

A further aspect of inequality highlighted in the review concerns those pupils whose parents cannot afford extracurricular tuition. Can my noble friend the Minister assure me that the Government will double down on these inequalities to ensure that the ability to read music and play an instrument becomes available to all students in state schools, and that the number of specialist music teachers will start to be restored to the much higher level it was at in 2011?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Despite the fact that my cello has sat in the attic for far too long, I wholly agree with my noble friend about the value of music and music tuition. We recognise the current challenge of access in music. Tackling that starts with a high-quality music education for every pupil through a reformed programme of study, and then providing clear progress routes for further study to 16 and 18, starting with a review of music, GCSE and technical awards. It needs the continued investment that the Government are making in the 43 music hubs partnerships across England to offer musical instrument tuition, instrument loaning and whole-class ensemble teaching. That is why I welcome the increase we have seen in the number of teachers teaching music and those entering initial teacher training.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, with the withdrawal of the EBacc and with more and more universities shutting down their modern language courses, what measures are the Government considering to prevent take-up of languages at GCSE plummeting? Secondly, will the noble Baroness give urgent attention to introducing an advanced language premium to boost take-up of languages at A-level, modelled on the very successful advanced maths premium? We know that having foreign language skills significantly enhances future employability, so we must avoid short-changing pupils in state schools by letting languages disappear.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Languages are a vital part of the curriculum, and we want to ensure that all pupils have access to a high-quality language education. That includes supporting and empowering the workforce: for example, we will continue to fund the National Consortium for Languages Education to ensure that all language teachers have access to high-quality professional development. We want more pupils to develop strong language skills and to have their achievements recognised earlier than at GCSE. For that reason, we will explore the feasibility of developing a new flexible languages qualification which enables all pupils to have their achievements acknowledged when they are ready, rather than at fixed points.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, alongside my noble friends and the irrepressible noble Lord, Lord Baker, I very much welcome today’s Statement. It talks about “boosting digital literacy through a reformed computing curriculum to allow pupils to navigate the opportunities and challenges of AI and much more”. What is the “much more”?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We want, first, to recognise that digital skills are an enormously important element of a young person’s development in the modern world. That is why we will widen the GCSE beyond simply computing and introduce a new level 3 qualification in data science and AI.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, Progress 8 has been proved to have been a success, and, as my noble friend pointed out, the Francis review is clear that its recommendation is not to make any changes

“to the structure of Progress 8 or the composition of the ‘buckets’”,

yet Ministers have now decided to consult on changes to the measure anyway. So, will keeping the current Progress 8 measure be included as one option within this consultation, or have the Government simply decided to ignore the evidence-based recommendation of their own review?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We believe we will deliver an improved version of Progress 8 that balances a strong academic core with breadth and student choice, reflecting the importance of a curriculum that supports high standards. That improved Progress 8 will recognise the value of subjects, including the arts, which strengthen our economy and society, and the importance of a broad pre-16 curriculum. As I have already said, it will maintain the focus on languages and on humanities. It has the potential in the consultation to strengthen the role, for example, of triple science, which is very important for enabling students to access further science study. We will of course listen carefully to the points that come forward in the consultation.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome the review and the Government’s response. I particularly welcome the emphasis on preparing young people for a changing world and the statutory requirement to teach citizenship at key stages 1 and 2. This is imperative in order to make the democratic process relevant to young people, but also for respect in politics. The Jo Cox Foundation, which I chair, highlights that, and the Speaker’s Conference noted that 96% of MPs have been subjected to harassment. That cannot be good for democracy. Can my noble friend reassure me that citizenship will be properly taught by properly qualified teachers?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I strongly agree with my noble friend, not least because I preceded her as the chair of the Jo Cox Foundation. We agree with the review that people should be taught the skills and knowledge they need to be active, informed and responsible citizens from an early age. As my noble friend says, it was one of the recommendations of the Jo Cox Civility Commission that there should be a better focus on the nature of government and the responsibilities of politicians in the school curriculum, in order to support not only better understanding but to reduce the unacceptable levels of abuse that elected officials face. I am glad that this Government have delivered that.

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the review, and I must press the Minister further on the decision not to accept its recommendation to stick with the current Progress 8. Can she tell us a little bit more about why the Government have made the proposals they have—why creative arts and not computing or technology? For many young people, particularly lower-achieving pupils, there will be less choice under the Government’s proposals. I am not sure that pushing a large number of unwilling boys into drama is quite what we have in mind. Any further enlightenment as to why the Government have made the recommendations they have made would be very welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Nobody is going to be pushed into drama who does not want to do it. In fact, in the same category as drama, music, and art and design is design and technology, which is being introduced into the curriculum for the first time. The noble Baroness will recognise that as being important. As I have stated, to ensure that we have a curriculum that supports high standards and the breadth and choice that students need, we are consulting on the reformed Progress 8.

Equality and Human Rights Commission: Draft Updated Code of Practice

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to accept the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s draft updated code of practice for services, public functions and associations.

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

My Lords, the Government are considering the draft updated code. If the decision is taken to approve it, the Secretary of State will lay it before Parliament. Parliament will then have a 40-day period to consider the code when it is laid. It is important that the correct process for laying the code is followed.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that very helpful response. Given that there is no new legislation and no opportunity for the Minister to refuse or reject the EHRC code of practice, why, therefore, have the government invited the EHRC to make an absolute analysis of the outcome the code of practice would have? There is no new legislation and no other alterations. Is the Minister not thinking that perhaps the Government are out of step and should make the decision as soon as possible? The impact on patients, which I would wish to come and discuss with her, is extremely serious. On a renal transplant unit recently in a major NHS hospital, two trans people insisted on having beds, which the current faulty code allows, and two transplant patients were moved on to the general ward, as a result of which one patient lost his new kidney and nearly died. These are the impacts that failure to act by the Government are actually having on patients.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

On the noble Baroness’s last point, I do not believe there is anything in the previous code or in any future code that would prevent the NHS making decisions on the basis of clinical need, rather than any other reason.

On the point the noble Baroness raises about the impact assessment, let me be absolutely clear: the EHRC has not been asked to carry out a full regulatory impact assessment, but rather to provide a minimum proportionate cost assessment to evidence exclusion from a full regulatory impact assessment and enable us to take an informed decision. Understanding costs and impacts is not new; it would have been a consideration in the 2011 code. The guidance on impact assessments was introduced by the party opposite, so I am sure they are familiar with the processes the Government have to follow.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister share my concern that details of aspects of the code are being conducted through public letters in the press rather than through proper parliamentary scrutiny? In the other place, the Secretary of State has suggested that the EHRC should focus on providing the required information to the Government, and, as she said, perhaps show

“a little less focus on public debate”.

Does my noble friend agree?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I always agree with what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State says, and I certainly do in this case. This just emphasises the point I made earlier: this code will have implications for service providers up and down the country, and, incidentally, it provides guidance across all protected characteristics, not solely sex and gender reassignment. It is therefore important for the Government to take the appropriate time to consider it, so that it can then be laid before Parliament for consideration.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, given the significant public interest in this guidance and the wide-ranging impact across society, can the Minister confirm that both Houses will have the opportunity to scrutinise the code through debate once it is laid before Parliament?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The Government will follow the process set out in the Equality Act 2006 for laying the code. As per the process set out in Section 14 of that Act, the Minister for Women and Equalities, after considering the updated draft code, and if the decision is taken to approve it, will lay it before both Houses over a 40-day period.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, at the beginning of the year, the Equality and Human Rights Commission sent the Secretary of State its revised guidance. In April, after the Supreme Court had confirmed that the reference to “women” in the Equality Act was a reference to biological sex, the commission sent a few further adjustments to the Secretary of State. The Government have to make a simple binary choice: either to accept the commission’s recommendations, or to reject them. Can the Minister explain why more than six months have passed before even an impact assessment has been considered in this context?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I think the noble and learned Lord knows that the full draft updated code was received by the Government from the EHRC on 4 September. Officials started work immediately after that. Having made clear to the EHRC that information about the impacts on businesses and public functions would be important, both in the previous iteration of the code and the one delivered on 4 September, the formal ask for that was made on 9 October.

I have already outlined in my previous answer why it is important and necessary for the conditions around impact assessments laid by, and presumably followed by, the previous Government to be carried out appropriately. Given the significance of this code, it is right that the Government take the time to get it right, rather than satisfy those who are calling for it to be laid in an untimely fashion.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

Like many, I am grateful that the interim advice that was issued and caused such widespread alarm was withdrawn, albeit belatedly. As the Minister has just said, we need to get this right rather than done quick. With that in mind, can the Minister assure us that the forthcoming appointment of the new chair of the EHRC will be taken as an opportunity to reset an organisation that has, of late, lost the confidence of many?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The EHRC continues to do important work, but I take the point that the right reverend Prelate makes. The new chair of the EHRC, who will start in her role at the end of this month, has an important opportunity to build on that work and to ensure, as I know she will, that she builds trust among a wide range of stakeholders and supports the Government—and, in fact, all of us—in ensuring that the provisions of the Equality Act, in the breadth of their application, are implemented as effectively as possible, because we all benefit from that.

[Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green (CB)]

My Lords, given that equality law operates across the United Kingdom, with devolved dimensions, can the Minister confirm whether the Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will have full access to His Majesty’s Government’s analysis of the draft code, so that their own Administrations can make informed and, crucially, consistent policy choices?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I can confirm that we are required to consult the devolved Governments on elements of the code, and that that work is ongoing. We will ensure that the proper process has been followed in relation to the devolved Governments, as the noble Baroness suggests.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, the existing code is out of date; we are all agreed on that. The EHRC has requested that it be taken down. Why not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As part of the parliamentary process for implementing the new code, the previous code will be revoked, but I understand that the EHRC has asked the Government to revoke the previous code at this point. We are considering the benefits and risks of doing that.

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, “proportionality” is the key word. The debate around trans people, and trans women in particular, has depicted them as a threat, particularly a threat to others. I therefore ask the Government not to act in haste but to proceed with care and, dare I say, kindness and caution to balance the rights of all concerned.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I recognise that, as my noble friend says, trans people are concerned about the implications of the recent Supreme Court ruling. As I have said, we are considering both that ruling and its implications carefully. However, we are clear, as was that ruling, that the laws to protect trans people from discrimination and harassment will remain in place. Trans people will still be protected on the basis of gender reassignment, a protected characteristic written into Labour’s Equality Act.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that, today, it is the obligation of all persons, whether private or public, to comply with the judgment of the Supreme Court, whether they agree with it or not, and without waiting for guidance?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, I do agree. That is what the Government, from the Prime Minister downwards, have been clear about since the judgment was made. Organisations should comply with that judgment; where they have concerns, they should take legal advice on how to do it.

Think Work First: The Transition from Education to Work for Young Disabled People (Public Services Committee Report)

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, for securing this important debate on this report. We are grateful to the committee for its work and its report, which found that young disabled people, as we have heard during a good debate today, face systemic barriers that prevent progress.

I am sorry about the delay that the committee experienced before the Government’s response. I will not identify a particular department because this is a cross-government responsibility, and it is a cross-government responsibility to respond to the committee in a timely manner. The tardiness of that response does not reflect the work that the Government are doing, and I will say something about that in responding to the debate.

We know that the SEND system in this country is broken, which is why we are taking time to review the system and to get our reforms right. We agree that there needs to be a cultural shift in how we support young disabled people, and that success is dependent upon raising aspirations, challenging discrimination and ensuring co-ordinated support from school through to sustained employment.

The recently published Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper sets out our vision for a world-leading skills system that breaks down barriers to opportunity for all; meets learners’ and employers’ needs; widens access to high-quality education and training; supports innovation, research and development; and improves people’s lives. The Government are committed to helping young disabled people to access and stay in work when they leave education, with a focus on early support and intervention. The Government have considered the committee’s recommendations and changes are already taking place.

The report made valuable recommendations regarding education and careers support, including improving careers adviser training, which we have done, first by embedding vocational profiling for young people with SEND into the careers leader and online training modules aimed at special educational needs co-ordinators and the wider education workforce to support careers conversations. This will help individuals identify their skills, interests, aspirations and support needs for employment.

On the important point about careers advice being appropriate and supportive for young people with disabilities, the government-funded careers support for young people is inclusive, with an emphasis on working with our delivery partner, the Careers and Enterprise Company, and with key partners, including special educational needs organisations and local government, to ensure that careers provision is tailored to the needs of young people. Careers hubs across the country receive SEND training as standard, which informs their work with schools and colleges. There are now SEND-specific co-ordinators in the network. All new enterprise co-ordinators have SEND induction training by default through CEC’s strategic partnership with Talentino. Among them, there are 38 SEND-specific enterprise co-ordinators across the hub network. Training is also available for employers, to make sure that their outreach programmes are as inclusive as possible, because those programmes, and of course work experience, need to be available for all young people, particularly for the young people we are talking about today.

CEC’s employer standards framework embeds inclusion as a key measure of quality in business outreach work. We are aligning adult skills provision and careers advice with the Jobcentre Plus network, building a new unified public jobs and careers service. We will review the vital role that adult essential skills provision plays in supporting people with learning difficulties and disabilities into work. Recognising the report’s recommendation to improve the post-16 qualifications framework, which my noble friend Lady Morris focused on at the beginning of her contribution, we will simplify and strengthen vocational pathways, introducing new rigorous qualifications so that all learners, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, will have access to high-quality study pathways and a clear line of sight to employment or further study.

My noble friend makes an important point about the focus at level 1 and level 2, not just at level 3. That is why our reforms will include two new pathways at level 2, including a further study pathway for students aiming to progress to level 3 but needing a period of time for extra preparation, and of course new English and maths qualifications at level 1, which will provide a gradual route for learners, helping them build knowledge and confidence before resitting full GCSEs where appropriate. My noble friend also makes an important point about broader consideration of qualifications at entry level and at level 1. I accept her challenge that more work needs to be done there.

On vocational courses, I think there is now a clearer route for students. On the point about apprenticeships, the Government’s introduction of foundation apprenticeships in August this year provides another route into apprenticeships that is more inclusive and available.

The soon to be published curriculum and assessment review led by Professor Becky Francis will set out plans to ensure that every learner, including those with SEND, receives a high-quality education supported by a curriculum that gives them the knowledge and skills they need to thrive. Improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream education settings is a key part of the Government’s ambition to ensure that all children and young people receive the support they need. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, emphasised this and talked about his important experience, during his time in education, in developing that. We know that good schools are already able to develop that type of inclusive education. We need, as the challenge has rightly been put, to make sure that that happens everywhere.

On our reforms, we are working closely with experts, including appointing a strategic adviser for SEND who is playing a key role in convening and engaging with the sector, including leaders, practitioners, children and families, as we consider the next steps for the future of SEND reform. The proposals that result from this co-production will be set out as part of a schools White Paper early next year and aim to restore confidence in the SEND system and deliver improvement so that every child can achieve.

However, we are not sitting and waiting for that to happen. We have already taken important steps, including the creation of 10,000 new school places for children with SEND as part of a £740 million capital investment to expand specialist units and adapt mainstream settings. Multimillion-pound programmes, such as the partnership for inclusion of neurodiversity in schools and early language support for every child, are being delivered in collaboration with central and local government schools and parents to test and learn new approaches, and inspection frameworks have also been updated to ensure that Ofsted holds school leaders to account for inclusion, with a new explicit focus on inclusion embedded in the framework.

The report also rightly called for more work experience opportunities and activities which prepare young people for employment. It identified the fantastic experience offered by supported internships and work placements and recommended that these are expanded to a larger non-EHCP cohort. At this point, perhaps I can go back 15 months to the point at which I chaired Barts Health, where the committee was able to go and see the fantastic work being done by Project SEARCH. It always inspired me when I was able to see that in the hospitals and across the trust, and the young people who then became important and productive members of the NHS staff in that trust.

The Department for Education is continuing to invest in building the capacity and quality of supported internships by providing up to £12 million to March 2026. Through this funding, the department is also expanding our pilot—to take up the point that my noble friend made—that is testing supported internships with young people who have SEND but do not have education, health and care plans, and who are furthest from the labour market, to support hundreds more young people with SEND to transition into sustained paid employment.

Through the youth guarantee, we are addressing the issue of young people not in employment, education or training by bringing together adult skills training, support to find work, and apprenticeships. The youth guarantee trailblazers are still in their first year of delivery, but already interesting examples are emerging of local approaches, focused specifically on young people with SEND. The trailblazer in the west of England, for example, has designed a programme to support young people with SEND to move into paid employment through tailored eight-week placements and structured support. By focusing on individual strengths, career coaching and inclusive employer engagement, the programme aims to build confidence, support transitions and enable sustained progression into the workplace.

The report also focused, as did the debate today, on the workplace, recommending steps which would promote workplace rights and inclusion, including measures to improve transparency, provide guidance and build awareness of disabled employees’ rights and employers’ obligations. At this point, I want to strongly support the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, about the contribution that disabled people make to the workforce and therefore to the economy, and to agree with him that, where people are short-sighted enough to see disabled people as a burden, they are doing not only disabled people but themselves and their businesses a disservice as well. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, through his excellent example, made that very clear.

There is an enormous win-win here for employers who are able to provide the working environment for young people with disabilities to shine in the way in which the noble Lord outlined. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, also made clear, to have opportunities for entrepreneurship and innovation is a further opportunity. Her points were important, and I will undertake to make sure that they are shared with my colleagues in the Department for Business and more broadly in relation to the points about entrepreneurship.

The Government agree that it is vital for both employers and employees to understand their rights and responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010, particularly around disability and reasonable adjustments. Existing measures already support this goal. The Equality Act 2006 established the Equality and Human Rights Commission and gave it the responsibility to promote and encourage awareness and understanding of equality and human rights across society. The commission also provides guidance and publishes the employment statutory code of practice, which serves as a key resource for employers and employees alike.

On the particular point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, about the disability confident scheme, which is a UK Government-backed voluntary initiative designed to help employers to recruit, retain and develop disabled people and those with health conditions by aiming to challenge negative attitudes, promote inclusive practices and close the disability employment gap by providing free guidance, resources and a structured framework for organisations, we are exploring how to make the scheme more robust, as the noble Lord argued for. We are working with employers, disabled people and disabled people’s organisations to realise the full potential of the scheme.

However, the Government are not complacent. We are taking steps to strengthen equality in the workplace through initiatives such as the Employment Rights Bill, which will require employers to produce equality action plans outlining actions on equality. We are also committed to build on the success of gender pay gap reporting and legislate to make it mandatory that all large employers publish their disability pay gap.

As the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, outlined, the disability pay gap has remained stubbornly high for many years and shows that disabled people too often face additional barriers to getting into work and thriving in the workplace. This pay gap sits in the context of disabled people in general earning less than non-disabled people and being twice as likely to be unemployed. That is why the Government are taking action to improve employment support for disabled people and supporting British businesses to make workplaces more inclusive of disabled people. We are committed to building on the success of gender pay gap reporting and legislate to make it mandatory that all large employers publish their disability pay gap.

I understand that reasons for the disability pay gap can be complex, and I am grateful to the many disabled people, representative organisations and businesses that shared their views in our recent consultation on the topic. I do not suggest that publishing pay gap data alone will resolve this gap, but it will provide large employers with a clear and measurable indicator to help to identify where issues might sit and take action accordingly. These measures will help to create a fairer and more inclusive workforce.

In response to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mott, about the universal support scheme, this Government’s £1 billion connect to work programme uses the funding originally planned for universal support and keeps the same important principles of high-fidelity supported employment provision for around 300,000 disabled people, people with health conditions and those with complex barriers to support by the end of the decade. Importantly, we worked with local authorities and mayors to increase flexibility in how this can be delivered. It is being rolled out across England and Wales and is already seeing people being supported into work, being as it is the largest supported employment programme in Europe.

I repeat my gratitude to the committee for bringing forward this debate, which has highlighted how essential it is that we provide the right support and training for young disabled people. Whether through high-quality apprenticeships, colleges or universities, skills give people the power to seize opportunity and gain the work that will make such a difference to them, our economy and our society. By working together across government, education settings and employers, we will provide a system whereby all young people will be able to follow the pathway that is right for them. As I suggested earlier—it has been a key theme for today’s debate—that will be good for those disabled young people, but it will also be good for our economy and society.

Antisemitism: Universities

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the reported threats to Professor Michael Ben-Gad, what further steps they are taking to ensure universities tackle antisemitism, and to protect Jewish academics and students from abuse.

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

My Lords, the targeted antisemitic campaign against Professor Ben-Gad is deeply troubling and has no place in our lecture halls, on campus or anywhere else. It is not free speech; it is harassment and it is abhorrent. Where a student is found to have been responsible for racially motivated harassment, intimidation or incitement to violence, I expect universities to react swiftly and to use the full force of their disciplinary powers to stop this happening again.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that. Since the year following 7 October 2023, Jewish students have seen a 413% increase in antisemitic incidents on campus. In the last three weeks alone, there have been death threats in university WhatsApp groups and university students chanting, “Put the Zios in the ground”. The Union of Jewish Students is calling on the DfE and the OFS to provide specific and actionable further guidance to universities on steps they need to take to protect Jewish students, and to give the vice-chancellors specifically simple and clear communication on what they can do. Will the Minister commit to do that, and more, to stop the glorification of terrorism?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State met the Union of Jewish Students just last week and wrote directly to vice-chancellors to outline the seriousness of this issue and the responsibility and action that she expected them to take. This was further pursued in a call with vice-chancellors that the Secretary of State attended last Friday, organised by Universities UK. In addition, we are using the additional funding for antisemitism training across schools and universities to address this issue. The OFS, through the new condition E6, which started this August, has made completely clear to universities their responsibility to prevent the sort of harassment and intimidation that we have seen too much of.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister say whether universities are required to have designated places of worship for Jewish students, and, if so, what security arrangements they are expected to put in place to ensure that Jewish students can worship in safety?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I will come back to the noble Baroness on the point about designated places, but it is absolutely imperative that all students are able to pursue their religious faith while they are students and be protected in their ability to do that. That is one of the reasons why the Government have made £500,000 available to the University Jewish Chaplaincy to support Jewish students. It is also why, as part of the other work that we are funding, we will train university security staff in how to counter antisemitism and support students in the legitimate following of their faith.

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, following the shocking and violent intimidation of Professor Michael Ben-Gad and the alarming data from the Community Security Trust, which documented a 117% surge in university-related antisemitic incidents across two academic years, culminating in a record high of 272 incidents in 2023-24, does my noble friend the Minister agree that this demonstrates a clear necessity for universities to fully comply with their legal duties in preventing the harassment and discrimination of staff and students on university campuses?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is right and, like the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, she has identified the shocking increase in the scale of antisemitic abuse and intimidation that not only students but staff are facing. We are clear—and, to be fair, I believe the vast majority of vice-chancellors are clear—that this is something which has no place on our campuses and on which strong action needs to be taken, backed up by the Office for Students and the new condition around intimidation and harassment, and supported by the investment in tackling antisemitism education that the Government are now making.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, the treatment of Professor Ben-Gad was totally disgraceful, as is the rise in antisemitism. Following up the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, surely the further question is: what disciplinary steps will be taken against universities if they fail to halt this rise of antisemitism on their campuses?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The Office for Students’ new condition E6, which requires universities to take action and have in place the framework to tackle intimidation and harassment, is a route through which the OfS could take action against universities if they do not take this seriously—though I believe many vice-chancellors are taking this seriously—and ensure that our universities are safe places for both Jewish students and staff.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, I register an interest in that my niece, Sophie Dunoff, is the chief executive of the University Jewish Chaplaincy—and grateful, of course, for the £500,000. We can all recall that, when we were students—it was not that long ago for some of us—we would study a bit, protest maybe a lot and party even more. We are living in Britain, yet Jewish students are facing harassment, intimidation and cancellation. I find the fact that we are having these discussions in Britain, in 2025, worrying. Enough of this standing side by side. As I have said before, action has to be taken, otherwise we are in for a real shock.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right: what is happening to Jewish students and Jewish members of staff is wholly unacceptable. He is also right that in this country we believe in a right to protest but we do not believe in a right to disrupt, intimidate or harass. That is why the OFS now has the powers that I have already outlined. It is why the Government have been clear in their communication with vice-chancellors that this issue must be taken enormously seriously and that action must follow, as the noble Lord says. It is also why the Government themselves are taking action to support the tackling of antisemitism through the education system.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, anyone who has watched the videos of what has happened to Professor Ben-Gad—the harassment and intimidation—will be rightly appalled. Unfortunately, as we have heard, this is not confined to one member of staff. There are too many students and staff on campuses across the UK who are being impacted in this way. The Government’s adviser on antisemitism, my noble friend Lord Mann, recently published a report with recommendations on countering antisemitism. It specifically includes how to safeguard Jewish lived experience on campus. What steps are the Government taking to implement the recommendations of that review? Will they undertake to write to all universities and colleges with the good-practice guide that accompanies that very important report?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am sure that the work of my noble friend Lord Mann is something that university vice-chancellors should look at very carefully to inform their work. As I have said, we have already written to vice-chancellors, but we will follow this up with further meetings with them. I will certainly undertake to ensure that the guidance that my noble friend references is brought to their attention through that process, if not more directly, as she is suggesting.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The Minister has referred a couple of times to the Office for Students’ new E6 powers. To reassure Jewish students, I hope, could the Minister set out how long it will take, if a university is identified as having weaknesses under E6, to address those?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

If a university gets to the point of having to be referred to the OFS as part of E6, it has clearly already failed and not done what this Government—I know this is supported across the House—have been very clear that it should be doing, including directly with vice-chancellors. The OFS would have the opportunity to investigate and take action, including through fines.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that all students are suffering from the conduct of extremists on campus? Does she agree that the right to protest does not include the right to disrupt lectures, examinations and degree ceremonies, to the detriment of all students?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I strongly agree with the noble Lord. That is why I was clear earlier that the right to protest is most certainly not a right to disrupt, intimidate or harass. It is the responsibility of all of us, including those in the leadership of universities, to make sure that students and staff can go about their business, worship and learn free from harassment and intimidation. That is what we are determined to deliver.

Autistic Children: State Schools

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name in the Order Paper, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the National Autistic Society—an honour that I share with my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Browning.

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

My Lords, we expect schools to support pupils with special educational needs and disabilities or mental health needs appropriately. In all cases, schools should consider early-intervention strategies before issuing any form of exclusion. We are investing in inclusion, behaviour, mental health support and attendance to build safe, supportive schools where every child can thrive. We trust head teachers to use exclusion based on individual cases, when necessary.

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

That was a most helpful and welcome Answer. Autistic children are particularly vulnerable to being excluded from school. Sometimes, behaviour associated with their autism is confused with disobedience because of a lack of awareness by staff. Most schools take the view that every child is responsible for their own behaviour. That might seem reasonable, but that approach takes no account of the challenges faced by autistic children. Does my noble friend agree that a strategy aimed at stopping these exclusions is needed and that it must focus on early intervention and staff training?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right about that and about the different factors that may lead to concerns about a child’s behaviour. It is very important that school leaders consider the use of early-intervention strategies and multi-agency assessment to address underlying causes or factors contributing towards a pupil’s disruptive behaviour before issuing an exclusion. Schools should arrange those assessments when concerns arise, not at the point at which there is a trigger for more radical behaviour. My noble friend is also right that high-quality teaching is the most important in-school factor to improve outcomes for all children. That is why, for example, we are providing continuing professional development to the school and further education workforce through the universal SEND services programme led by the National Association for Special Educational Needs.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

I am grateful to my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, for asking this Question and I too declare my interest as a vice-president of the National Autistic Society. When autistic children present challenging behaviour in a classroom setting, there is always a reason for it. Very often, it is seen just as general bad behaviour, which very often builds. In going forward with the treatment and education of autistic children, can the Minister confirm that individual plans for individual children—that are key to understanding why that challenging behaviour may have evolved, because they are all individuals with different reasons—will remain and can she reassure me that autistic children will not be subject just to generic treatment or recommendations?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I feel that the whole of your Lordships’ House benefits from the commitment and knowledge of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and my noble friend on this topic. She once again makes an important point that to support children with autism, we need to first recognise that there is a range of differences in the way in which it presents. Secondly, we need to identify those needs as early as possible and to ensure that a medical assessment is not required for that to happen. Thirdly, there must be an individualised approach, including a plan where necessary, to support those children. We need to put that alongside the additional training that is now happening for teachers, from their initial teacher training, through their early career framework and to leadership positions. We have not solved this problem yet, but we are making important progress along the lines that the noble Baroness outlined.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, will the Minister give us a further assurance that the schools know that they need to work in flexibility? Rigid rules or disciplinary behaviour will almost certainly trigger adverse reactions from autistic people, particularly pupils who do not have that degree of life experience or different perceptions of the world outside. Schools must have flexibility and it must be throughout the system.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right about that. It follows the point made by the noble Baroness about the need for a personalised approach. In fact, the approach to all children with special educational needs and disabilities must be personalised, but the point about the different ways in which autism might reflect in behaviour or needs in the classroom is very important. That is why we need teachers who have received particular training and development, and the ability within all schools to both identify and respond to the needs of children, including those with autism, in the most effective way. The noble Lord is absolutely right that that will differ from child to child.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has documented unlawful exclusions of children with special educational needs and disabilities, including informal removals and off-the-record practices that may breach the Equality Act 2010. My understanding is that the DfE does not currently collect data on unlawful exclusions, so I ask the Minister what assessment the Government have made of the likely prevalence of the exclusion of autistic pupils that is off the record. Will the Government commit to collecting disaggregated data on unlawful exclusions, so that we know the full impact on pupils who are autistic?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right that schools have a legal duty, under the Equality Act, not to discriminate against pupils by excluding them because of their disability. It would be unlawful to exclude a pupil simply because they have SEN or a disability that the school feels unable to meet, for example. I will write to the noble Baroness about the nature of the data that we collect, and any future plans, but, even more importantly, the message that we need to intervene earlier, identify earlier and find a range of ways in which to support pupils is constantly being delivered to schools alongside the support to enable that to happen. But I will write about the particular issue on data.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend accept that autism and ADHD often present differently in boys and girls? Girls are frequently underdiagnosed and under-understood, because their behaviour can sometimes be challenging in a completely different way. They may not be disruptive but their behaviour often results in them simply ducking out of the kind of engagement that we need. Can my noble friend assure the House that that issue will be taken into account when taking forward the training programmes for teachers that she has identified?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, my noble friend makes a very important point there that builds on the point about the difference in the ways in which autism may present, but particularly highlights the differences—as she says, and as I understand it—in the way that people may present, depending on their sex. That is an issue which will need to be considered as we think about the appropriate ways to support children.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister clarify her response to her noble friend Lord Touhig, who I think I heard say that the Government need a strategy aimed at stopping exclusions? The Minister knows that schools have a very difficult balancing act between upholding the rights of children to have a calm and undisrupted education and those children who need additional support. I hope she will reassure the House that we are not going to go down the Scottish route of no exclusion and then tremendously disruptive classrooms and violence towards teachers.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Baroness was listening to my initial response, when I said that the Government support head teachers to make the right decision about exclusions. I also agree with her that all pupils have the right to learn in a safe and calm classroom. Therefore, it is sometimes necessary to remove children from the classroom, or even from the school. I think the point that my noble friend was making was that before that decision is made, it is really important that consideration is given to all the range of support that might be provided to a child and the reasons why a child might be behaving in a certain way. I am sure that she agrees with me that that is what good schools would want to do, and what they need is a Government beside them and supporting them to have the resource and the capability to do that.

Post-16 Education and Skills Strategy

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Statement. We share many of the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raised, and she quite skilfully teased those out with the questions she asked. Looking at the Statement, my immediate thought is that there is a lot of rhetoric in it, but there needs to be less rhetoric and more detail about some of the proposals. The biggest issue we face, which is not addressed, is the cultural shift in this country. Parents regard it as a successful education, quite honestly, and I have said this before, if the child or young person gets the required number of GCSEs, goes into the sixth form and goes to university. Schools lap up the number of students who go into the sixth form because they get extra funding for it, yet we know that half the pupils in our secondary schools are not academic, and we have this academic curriculum.

The other thing that surprises me in the Statement, which I think is crucial, is that young people need guidance. They need advice. They need help. They need support. I am surprised that there is no mention of careers education or careers guidance in the Statement —at this point, I declare an interest as a patron of Career Connect. It rightly says that

“our young people risk being left behind.”

That is absolutely right, because currently we have about one million NEETs in this country—not in education, employment or training. It talks about

“local businesses becoming more productive … and bustle returning to the high street”,

which begs the question of how we are going to do that. That is not just by quality training; there are number of other issues. Of course, the hike in national insurance did not help businesses, to be honest, and it certainly did not help high streets either.

The Statement talks about

“a muddle of confusing pathways”,

yet in some respects makes the muddle even more confusing, replacing BTECs with V-levels and cutting funding for the international baccalaureate programme in state schools. We welcome V-levels bringing flexibility, but we would rather see the phasing out of BTECs by 2027, both running in parallel during the transition so that outcomes can be compared. We know that BTECs work, because 200,000 students took them last year and 99% of universities accept them. One in five workers hold them. We need the Government to be more supportive here and look at funding streams. Why can sixth forms claim VAT, yet further education colleges cannot, for example? We support V-levels, but only if the transition from BTECs is based on evidence and if sufficient funding is provided to truly deliver a world-class vocational education.

Briefly, I am pleased about the section on universities. On the last Statement, the Minister gave us an assurance that the Government would face up to the funding crisis in universities, and they have been true to their word, but it is a bit disappointing that more money could have been available for universities had they not slapped on the levy for overseas students. That could have been an income stream that benefited the university sector.

I turn to the international baccalaureate. It sets the global benchmark for education. It is trusted by universities, employers and educators around the world as a mark of academic excellence, and thousands of British families choose to send their children to schools offering the IB diploma. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of this cut to students’ ability to study under an internationally recognised programme?

We welcome the Government’s ambition to create a joined-up, strategic approach to education. However, the glaring omission of lifelong learning cannot be ignored. Learning does not end at 21. What steps are the Government taking to provide pathways for essential professions and deal with shortages in social work, nursing and engineering? It is important to all of us—we all have a real stake in this, the present Government and the previous Government—that we get this right and that it works. I hope that the mantra of two decades ago, “education, education, education”, is replaced by “skills, skills, skills”.

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

My Lords, in the relatively short time left for me before we get on to other questions, I will endeavour to respond to as many of the points raised as possible. Just to reiterate, this White Paper outlines the Government’s plans to deliver a joined-up skills system that targets skills gaps and leaves no place or person behind, a specialist and prestigious FE sector with high-quality study pathways into work and a world-leading higher education sector that drives innovation and growth and delivers high quality and good value for students. It is the blueprint for delivering the Prime Minister’s bold new target for two-thirds of young people to participate in higher-level learning—academic, technical or apprenticeships—by age 25.

On the first point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about higher technical qualifications, we will work with the Office for Students to develop new HTQ awarding powers for providers and we are reforming the process for designating higher technical qualifications to make them meet a wider range of employer and local needs. I am glad that she recognised the development of technical excellence colleges as an important way of raising standards in further education. We are outlining plans for a further 19, following the 10 construction techs, in a range of other industrial strategy areas, and techs, of course, will enable us to raise standards by developing advanced equipment, specialised staff and new curricula, all alongside industry. We will learn and build on the model of institutes of technology, although I note that they have not been as successful in developing levels 4 and 5 as I suspect noble Lords opposite wanted them to be.

On the development of V-levels, this Government have taken the decision to maintain that important vocational route for young people—a route that would have disappeared under the previous Government’s plans. In doing that, we will build on what works in current vocational qualifications but we will also make sure that these new qualifications are linked to what employers need to see in those areas, guided by national standards.

On defunding, as we said last year when we carried out the qualifications review, we believe that where there are large courses in the same area as T-levels, students will gain more by following a T-level course. But we are going back from the defunding proposals of the previous Government, even some of those in the qualifications review last year, and we will maintain funding for all large qualifications in non-T-level routes, and for medium-sized and small qualifications in T-level routes, up to the point at which V-levels are available, ensuring that the transition is as smooth as possible. In developing V-levels, we will engage with colleges, employers and, of course, awarding bodies.

On the English and maths qualification, it remains incredibly important that young people achieve that grade 4 in English and maths, and that is why we have both increased funding and been clear in our guidance that that should continue to happen in further education colleges. But there is no point in somebody keeping on taking an examination when they have not yet been able to gain the foundation necessary to succeed in that. That is why we will introduce new opportunities through level 1 qualifications for those foundations to be built on, so as to achieve success for young people rather than failure. We will invest in the further education workforce, as we already have done, and we will provide £800 million extra next year for the further education sector.

Yes, we will consider areas where we can expand T-levels.

I will probably get the opportunity to say more about higher education quality later, but we are clear that where there is bad value for public money, we will, alongside the OfS, ensure that it goes out of the system.

There is mention, by the way, of level 2 and 3 apprenticeships, not least in the £1 billion of investment that this Government have put into sector skills packages.

The noble Lord, Lord Storey, suggested that the Statement was rhetorical. Yes, elements of it were, but I am sure that he has also looked at the considerable amount of detail in the White Paper, and I am sure we will have many more opportunities to get into more detail on that.

Fundamentally, as the noble Lord says, what the White Paper does is to improve the status of our technical and vocational qualification routes, for young people and for older people, to ensure that we bring about a fundamental renewal of the skills system as part of our national renewal. This White Paper is a turning point, and I look forward to working through how we deliver this fundamental change, how we measure it and how this therefore leads to an improved skills system, improved opportunities for people throughout their lives, and improved growth for our economy.

[Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)]

My Lords, I too welcome this White Paper. I think it is a turning point. It is a document of ambition and a very serious document. If it is implemented, it is a turning point—there will be no going back on some key issues. But the devil really is in the detail and, although it is an ambitious document, I just want to press the Minister on the BTECs and the V-level qualifications because that is the biggest change. If they do not work, this will not be a successful White Paper.

Did I hear the Minister say that there will be no gap between the defunding of the successful BTECs and the introduction of the V-levels, even if that is later than anticipated in the White Paper, which may very well be the case? A query I have in my mind is: if the content of the BTEC is successful now with both employers and learners, will that content be reclassified as a V-level or will it cease to exist?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

To reiterate, what we have said is that where there is a T-level in place, we will, as we said we would in the qualifications review that we did last year, defund a large qualification that sits alongside it because all the evidence is that students get through T-levels—and the placements, for example, that go alongside T-levels—a better chance of progression. But, yes, in all other areas we will maintain existing qualifications up to the point that a V-level is in place to replace them. We will want V-levels to build on what is good about current vocational qualifications, including BTECs, and that is why we will engage, through our advisory group, with college principals, the awarding organisations and others. Of course, we have issued a consultation document on the development of V-levels and the other important reforms in post-16 qualifications, which I encourage not just noble Lords but anybody else who is interested in this to contribute to.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, this is certainly an important document. The first thing I noticed about it, though, was that it is being fronted by DSIT but not DCMS, which does not seem to be involved at all—when the creative industries are such an important aspect of the industrial strategy, and in particular the many skill sets that will be needed to drive these industries. Those skills will have their own pathways. So I ask the Minister: what thought has been given to vocational pathways for those who wish to work in the creative industries?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

There will be opportunities through V-levels for those interested in vocational routes into the creative industries. There will be opportunities through some of the sector skills packages—not least, for example, in the area of digital—to support the creative industries. There is, of course, a sector skills plan as part of the creative industries element of the Government’s industrial strategy.

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

My Lords, I particularly welcome the increase in fees for students, as that sets the resources available for the education of students without affecting the monthly repayments that graduates subsequently make. However, the international student levy will take away quite a bit of that resource, so does the Minister agree that the real resource available for educating students overall will continue to fall? Does she accept that that cannot carry on indefinitely?

I also welcome the recognition in the White Paper that there is no viable alternative to the fees and loans system that we have now had for over 20 years. But is the Minister concerned that there are still misunderstandings and misplaced anxieties that it is somehow a fixed amount of debt like a credit card debt or stops you getting a mortgage? If anything, those concerns appear to be increasing. Will the DfE energetically commit to explaining to young people the realities of how the system works?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

On the noble Lord’s first point, no, I do not accept that an index-linked increase in tuition fees—a certainty of funding that no other public or private sector organisations, or very few, could have committed to them—will leave universities worse off. That is notwithstanding this Government’s decision that in order to reinstate the maintenance grants removed by the last Government we will use a levy on international students to reintroduce targeted maintenance grants for students. Of course, asking students to invest in their education is right, alongside government investment, but we need to make sure that that world-leading higher education system is open to all who can benefit from it and that we close the gap in access, which has persisted for too long.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, the Government have stated, and the Minister has repeated, the concentration on English and maths. They have also talked about special educational needs and I once again declare my interests: I am president of the British Dyslexia Association—whose event in the Commons I am missing at the moment—and chairman of Microlink plc, which does assistive tech packages.

On special educational needs—dyscalculia, for example—I met somebody the other day whose brother had failed the maths component of an apprenticeship for the 15th time. Can we make sure that, when we look at the qualifications, if we are going to bring everybody into the skill set, everybody is allowed to pass, either by changing the qualification or allowing assistive technology to be used? This does not happen in universities, which can make their own rules, but for the higher education sector—levels up to five—it is essential that we have that guidance from the Government.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Quite often in further education, there is very good special educational needs provision, which we will learn from. We will also ensure, as part of our special educational needs reform, that further education is included as a part of that. However, the whole point about the reform in English and maths qualifications—particularly the introduction of a new qualification that will enable students to demonstrate and build on their foundations—is to support more young people to pass. The noble Lord will also know that we have changed the conditions for adult apprenticeships so that it is no longer necessary to get a separate English or maths qualification in order to get an adult apprenticeship.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, while I associate myself with the comments on the IB from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, I want to focus on the issue of NEETs. The White Paper seeks to address the growing problem of NEETs with pre-NEET targeted support in schools, the youth guarantee and short courses funded by the growth and skills levy, and the lifelong learning entitlement. Can the Minister tell us how these short courses will consolidate into the high-quality apprenticeships that this vulnerable group need if they are to prosper in the labour market?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for recognising the range of reform necessary to tackle this enormously worrying problem of young people who are neither learning nor earning. In order to prevent that in the first place, as he identifies, we will have higher expectations on schools to ensure suitable destinations for young people. We will look at the ways in which we can ensure that every young person has a place in a college and is auto-enrolled if necessary. We will then, through, for example, the Chancellor’s announcement of a backstop youth guarantee work placement for young people on universal credit who have been out of work for 18 months, make sure that people no longer start their working life without the work or training that can lead them to succeed.

When it comes to short courses, this is part of our reform of the apprenticeship levy into a much more flexible growth and skills levy, which, alongside short courses, also introduces foundation apprenticeships. These will be a very important way in which young people can enter the workforce and will have an important impact on NEETs as well.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

I ask noble Lords to keep their questions short. We have enormous interest in this subject and we want to get through as many questions as we can.

[Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a visiting professor at King’s and chairman of FutureLearn. I welcome the Statement, particularly, like my noble friend Lord Willetts, the bold decision to index fees with inflation—it is absolutely the right thing to do after a decade of real-terms freezes. However, I regret the missed opportunity to fix some of the big problems with the lifelong learning entitlement and the decision to take away with the other hand what the Government have just given on the fees front. Can the Minister please confirm the scope of the proposed tax on international tuition fees? Does it include, for example, online provision and transnational education—that is, courses taken by students from British universities while they are studying in other countries? Given that the Government have acknowledged that they do not have a strong evidence base on elasticity of demand, would it not be a better idea to pause to rollout of this tax or, better still, shelve it altogether?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I explained to the noble Lord’s colleague the reason behind the international student levy. I do not think it is true to say that there is not an evidence base on the elasticity of demand for international students, but we will have more to say about the design of the international student levy at the point of the Budget.

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

I welcome also the ambitious nature of the White Paper, but can the Minister respond to how the strategy will ensure that creative industries and crafts are seen as legitimate skill sectors on an equal footing with engineering, manufacturing and industrial bodies? Given that many creative and craft roles are bespoke, freelance or project-based, how does the strategy accommodate non-standard employment and income models in training and qualifications? How will successful craft and creative routes be measured and how will this compare with other sectors?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

There are a lot of questions in the noble Lord’s question, most of which I will have to respond to in writing. I reassure him that, in the sorts of crafts he talked about, we maintain a considerable number of apprenticeship standards that can be used by employers to take on apprentices and continue those sorts of important crafts.

[Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)]

My Lords, I too welcome the Statement. I want to probe the issue of franchising in the higher education sector. I am delighted to see the Government take action, but, as the Minister will be aware, there is some anxiety that, by requiring only the largest providers to register, we may miss some of the bad actors in this area. Will the Government keep the case for universal basic registration of all providers under review?

Secondly, as the Minister is aware, there have been excess profits made. Can she assure us that the department will be monitoring these returns, to mitigate the profiteering with public money and tackle the inadequate teaching that there has been for some students involved in this sector? Finally, will she keep under review the risks of keeping the student loan book open to high-risk providers in this area?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that, over recent years, the doubling of the effective subcontracting of university education through franchising has led to concerns around the quality for students and the value for money for the taxpayer. That is why we will take action to register providers of franchised provision and we will strengthen the ability of the Office for Students to tackle poor provision where it is found.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

I support the comments of my noble friend Lord Storey and the noble Lord, Lord Knight, on NEETs and funding for them. One of the issues about NEETs is the “not known” figure. We might know the young people who are not in employment, education or training, but often there is a cohort who are not known, and that is where investment in information, advice, guidance and youth work will be essential.

I have two questions for the Minister about lifelong learning. There is a glaring omission from the Statement, and that is post-21 apprenticeships. Lifelong learning does not end at 21, and I would like the Government to look again at the cuts being made to those apprenticeships in the health sector, et cetera. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, asked about the assessment of the cut to the international baccalaureate, and what impact that will have on transnational students, particularly those who want to study abroad as well.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

First, there is an increase in the number of apprenticeships that have started under this Government. Secondly, on the issue of the international baccalaureate, colleges and schools will continue to receive funding to provide courses, including the international baccalaureate. What they will not receive is the additional top-up that they have for the international baccalaureate, because this Government have made the decision to focus that on maths and STEM subjects, where people take larger numbers of courses. Prioritising those areas is a legitimate decision. Where the IB is being taught, there will be transitional support as the top-up is removed.

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, the White Paper places heavy emphasis on modularity and credit transfer as mechanisms to improve post-16 education. Has the Minister taken full account of the evaluation of the previous attempt, the qualifications and credit framework, brought in in 2008 and scrapped in 2015, and all the lessons that this should have taught us about the risks and important requirements for such a system?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I think the noble Baroness was welcoming the development of a more modular approach, supported through the delivery of the lifelong learning entitlement. Of course, we will want to look carefully at previous experiences, but we have a big opportunity here to increase both the prevalence of students who are able to go through a pathway to level 4 and 5 courses and the willingness of higher education institutions to work with further education to promote the possibility of that happening. As I say, we will learn from previous experiences in doing that.

[Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, alignment with the industrial strategy is vital, and I am really pleased to see that the White Paper is taking a national view of skills in target sectors. It is good news that sector skills packages with significant investment attached have been agreed for construction, TechFirst, engineering and defence.

As has been said, there are also shortages in the creative industries. I therefore press my noble friend the Minister: does she agree that the development and agreement of a sector skills plan and package for and with the creative industries—working with DfE, DCMS and DSIT—is a priority and needs to be developed at pace?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As my noble friend knows, there is a sector skills plan that goes alongside the creative industries’ inclusion in the industrial strategy. Of course, it is already the case that among the sector skills packages—for example, the digital package, with £187 million behind it—we will be developing important skills for the creative industry. As well as the sector skills plan, jobs plans will be developed in each of the areas, and I am sure my noble friend will maintain her pressure to make sure that this makes the difference to skills in the creative industries that I know she wants to see.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, on the reality of student debt, for the cohort that started to be liable for paying off debt in April 2025, the average debt was £53,000. In the government stats for students starting in 2024-25, it is expected that about 56% of full-time undergraduates will repay in full, which of course means that 44% of those students will spend 40 years paying off a loan they will never finish paying off. Can the Minister tell me, either now or in writing, what these increases in fees will do to those two figures?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness has identified the very different nature of student loan provision from an ordinary form of borrowing. What a student repays is dependent neither on the size of the debt nor on the interest rate; it is dependent on the student’s level of income once they are working. The noble Baroness can shake her head, but that is the reality of the way the system is designed. Therefore, there is both a student contribution and, in many ways, a taxpayer contribution to ensuring that there is no upfront cost to students going to university. The noble Lord makes an important point that we need to clarify the nature of the student loan system, in order that we do not discourage young people from going to university.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a working teacher. I very much welcome this wonderfully optimistic White Paper and its positively Churchillian language. At one point, it says that

“we are improving careers advice in schools … and introducing 2 weeks’ worth of work experience throughout a young person’s secondary education”.

The Gatsby Foundation’s Ghost of Provisions Past talks about the difficulty of securing meaningful work placements. When schools’ biggest complaint is that T-levels are incredibly difficult to teach because you cannot get meaningful work placements, how do the Government see this working?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

One of the big advantages of T-levels is that students are able to gain a 45-day work placement alongside their studies. T-level students continuously tell me that this is what they find most satisfying about doing a T-level. Yes, there is a challenge to make sure that those are of a high quality, but that is why, through our T-level ambassadors and through a very good meeting I had just last week with employers, we are continuing to work to make sure that employers provide those placements. They are of benefit not only to the students but to the employers themselves, who often find the workers of the future in those placements.

Youth Unemployment

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce youth unemployment.

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

My Lords, too many young people are at risk of being left behind without the right skills, opportunities and support to thrive. This Government are committed to changing that, which is why the Chancellor has announced a job guarantee scheme for young people on universal credit who have been unemployed for over 18 months. This is a key part of the Government’s youth guarantee, and further details will be set out in the upcoming Budget.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for her Answer, and I hope it all works. However, earlier this week, the ONS published the latest jobs data, which the Daily Telegraph reported by stating:

“Young workers are taking a particular beating in the jobs market, with a slump in graduate vacancies, and drops in hiring particularly in the retail and hospitality industries which often offer workers their first roles”.


Given this appalling backdrop, can the Minister explain why the Government, who say they are committed to this, have rejected my amendment to the Employment Rights Bill, which is universally supported by employers, and which would mitigate the effect of day-one unfair dismissal rights? That policy, if enacted, will obviously reduce employers’ willingness to take risks in hiring young people.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am always pleased to hear the views of the Daily Telegraph on issues around young people’s employment. I hope that the Telegraph, as well as the noble Lords opposite, will get behind this Government’s efforts on the youth guarantee and on cutting the unacceptably large number of young people who are currently neither earning nor learning. On the Employment Rights Bill, the Government aim to protect employees from arbitrary dismissal, including those early in their careers. A statutory probation period will be introduced with light-touch standards for fair dismissal based on performance and stability, and that approach appropriately balances worker protections with the need for employers to assess new hires confidently.

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that a major factor in the persistence of youth unemployment is that 32% of 16 year-olds failed to achieve a grade 4 in English and Maths at GCSE in 2024? Does she also agree that the ongoing curriculum and assessment review, led by Professor Becky Francis, must reunite knowledge and skills in the school curriculum—they are two sides of the same coin—and provide routes for pupils to remain in education or training as a foundation for their future working lives?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right that the opportunities that young people have throughout their lives are dependent on the standards, quality and success that they experience in schools. That is why we have already taken action to ensure that new routes are available for young people post-16—for example, through foundation apprenticeships—and why we have increased the support available to young people in colleges to get the qualifications in English and maths that are so important for them later in life. It is also why, through both Becky Francis’s curriculum and assessment review and the Government’s post-16 skills and education White Paper, we will have more to say about how we ensure that there are clear, successful routes for all our young people post-16.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I am disappointed to hear the Minister, in discussing youth unemployment, mention universal credit and other such things. I ask the Minister to consider whether—as I would have thought—one of the basic ways of reducing youth unemployment is to encourage and introduce more apprentices. If only we had people who were encouraged financially by the Government in plumbing, electrical work and all the trades that people need; instead, we are using people from overseas because we are not training anyone. Are the Government giving financial incentives to the plumbers, electricians and so on to train the tradespeople for the future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I reassure the noble Lord that we are indeed doing that. He is right that the fact that there has been a 40% reduction in young people starting apprenticeships over recent years is a shocking indictment of the previous Government’s approach to skills and the training of young people. That is why one of the measures we have introduced—just this August—is new foundation apprenticeships to support young people into employment in a range of different areas important both for them and the economy. Incidentally, they include a £2,000 incentive for the employer to take on those young people for training. We will have more to say about that and the opportunities for young people when we publish our post-16 White Paper.

[Lord Geddes (Con)]

My Lords, by way of illustration, I cite the example of my 23 year-old granddaughter, who has a first-class degree from the University of Birmingham in physics. She applied to over 200 potential employers and did not even get a reply from any of them. Can the Minister encourage such potential employers at least to have the courtesy of replying to the young?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point about how employers should recognise the efforts that young people put into applying for those roles. We recognise that some graduates face challenges in getting jobs. However, it is still the case—and I hope the noble Lord’s granddaughter will be reassured by this—that UK graduates continue to have strong and above-average employment rates. If she or other graduates need additional help as well as comprehensive jobseeker support, graduates under 24 benefit from all of the tailored jobcentre offer available to all young people on universal credit.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Minister has been doing brilliant work on this agenda for decades, so it is great to see her in her place. Following on from the brilliant question from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, a moment ago, will the Minister tell us how many apprenticeships are provided in each government department? Will the Government set a commitment to increase that number, because I know that it is not high enough? Will the Government also place a duty on local councils to increase the number of apprenticeships that they provide? Will the Government consider requiring organisations and companies in receipt of public funds, such as housing associations or charities, to provide apprenticeships in return for receiving that support?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that. I do not have at my fingertips the numbers of apprentices employed in each of the government departments. He makes an important point about the role of the public sector, procurement and ensuring that we are linking government spending with the development of skills. That is certainly something that we are doing across government. The Prime Minister could not have been clearer about the significance of enabling young people to gain higher-level skills alongside the excellent opportunities provided by our universities, in setting, as he has done, a clear ambition for the Government to deliver for two-thirds of young people the opportunity of higher-level apprenticeships or higher technical qualifications or degrees. The Government will now get behind that ambition.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, the curriculum review has been mentioned. Would not the Minister agree that it is really important that the curriculum is reset to reflect a well-rounded education? The arts have been diminished in schools in recent years, and the creative industries will be hugely important for our young people in terms of employment in the future.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Earl is right that, as part of the curriculum and assessment review, Becky Francis is considering the large amount of evidence that has been provided, and she has been clear in the challenge that the Government have set her, and that she has set herself, that maintaining a strong knowledge base within our curriculum is fundamentally important but so is providing the space for teachers and others to enable young people to develop their creativity in the very widest sense. I am sure we will hear more about that when the curriculum and assessment review is published.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, building on the answer that the Minister gave to my noble friend Lady Bousted, can she confirm that schools value all the various ways in which young people can move from education into further and higher education and into employment, and do not unnecessarily downgrade the virtue of, for example, BTECs and other forms of vocational qualifications, which I think historically has been the case?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I think there have been improvements in careers education in recent years, something that this Government are determined to build on. One of the key points, as my noble friend says, is how we provide young people with information, advice and guidance on the whole range of opportunities available to them, both in academic routes through A-levels and in technical routes through T-levels and apprenticeships, which we are determined to support for younger people. We will have more to say about all that in our post-16 White Paper soon.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Thursday 18th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, and other noble Lords who proposed the amendments in this group. This is a very technical area, and we have heard much expert opinion from my noble friend Lord Banner, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and, crucially in our opinion, the former Chief Inspector of Education my noble friend Lady Spielman, and my noble friend Lady Coffey.

It is important to flag that, although His Majesty’s loyal Opposition completely understand the spirit of noble Lords’ amendments, we are not in a position to support them. The UK has already signed and ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, in 1990 and 1991 respectively, and it came into force in January 1992. As such, the UK is already bound by international law to implement the agreement, and our progress is being monitored by the Committee on the Rights of the Child. But several of the recommendations in the last report from the committee, including on child rights assessments and education, are ones we did not support when we were in government and still do not support in opposition.

Amendment 469 would bring an additional child rights assessment into all legislation, as recommended by the committee in its 2023 report. We simply do not believe that this is required; in fact, instead of enhancing a child’s education, it would further slow our ability to legislate and implement effectively.

The wider recommendations in the report are also not proposals with which we concur, including, for example, the recommendation to end academic selection and testing measures to reduce levels of stress on pupils. This has the potential to do real harm, particularly to disadvantaged pupils.

We believe that the huge opportunity before us is not to layer on new statutory duties or reporting mechanisms. To the contrary, it is to ensure that the education system we strive for is one that builds on the successes of the past 20 years, aided by noble Lords on all Benches of your Lordships’ House. An education that offers each and every child the opportunity to realise their full potential—that should be the endgame.

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

My Lords, the amendments in group 1, as we have heard in a very good and well-informed debate, relate to duties on Ministers and public bodies in respect of children’s rights and parents’ rights to educate children in accordance with their faith. Let me be clear in responding to this group that the Government are committed to safeguarding children’s rights, both in law and in practice, and firmly uphold the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I am grateful to noble Lords for their views on these important matters and for the opportunity, as I say, to hear from experts in this Committee. We have listened carefully to the arguments for these amendments and will continue to engage closely with all those advocating for the rights of children. We regularly meet, for example, with an expert advisory group to hear directly from key stakeholders in this area, including the Children’s Rights Alliance for England, Coram, Barnardo’s and several others. This group will in fact be meeting again in the department next week. Additionally, we convene regular meetings with all the major children’s charities. These fora provide Ministers and officials with excellent and important opportunities to hear first-hand from the experts on these issues and to help us advance our shared goal of putting children’s rights at the very centre of policy-making.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

May I just ask the Minister: does she meet groups of children?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I have barely got started, but yes, most certainly we do, and I will come to a bit more detail on that in a moment. As we have discussed at various points during the course of the Bill’s passage, there are a whole range of ways in which the Government engage with children, both on the specifics of legislation but also more broadly. For example, a very wide-ranging engagement has been led by colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, along with DfE and the Department of Health, on the development of this Government’s youth strategy, and a very large number of children have been engaged.

I was just about to say that my honourable friend and former Minister, Janet Daby, engaged readily with these key stakeholders and asserted—as do I and as, I am sure, my new colleague Josh MacAlister does—the fundamental importance of children’s rights to this Government. In parallel, we are also carefully considering the issues and amendments on the rights and voice of the child that were raised on Part 1 earlier in Committee, to ensure that children’s rights are protected throughout the Bill.

Amendment 469, in the name of my noble friend Lady Lister and introduced by my noble friend Lady Blower, would place a duty on Ministers to prepare and publish a child rights impact assessment concerning all relevant legislative, policy and budget developments in the Act that will impact children’s well-being, social care or education, prior to the decision being taken. On children’s rights assessments and more broadly on the UNCRC, this Government have put children at the heart of our mission to break down barriers to opportunity through our plan for change. Ministers already consider the impact of our children’s rights responsibilities in all new policies and legislation, and of course through this landmark Bill we are delivering the most significant reforms—for example, to child protection—in a generation.

By improving safeguarding, strengthening social care and ensuring that vulnerable children do not fall through the cracks, we are already putting children and families first. For this Bill, we published children’s rights impact assessments for all measures, and we are working hard in the department to deliver what I think my noble friend Lady Longfield rightly emphasised: the need to improve both the status of children’s rights impact assessments and to develop the culture and win hearts and minds in order to ensure that that is delivered across government.

That is why we are continuing to work with policymakers across government to carry out CRIAs to analyse the impact of government decisions on children. It is a valuable tool, and the department has worked with civil society experts, for example, to develop a robust template, which was one of the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell. We will continue work with children’s rights experts to promote children’s rights across government and upskill officials on the importance of considering children’s rights in policy-making and how best to utilise the assessment tool.

--- Later in debate ---

I shall finish by proposing that one of the actions to guarantee greater participation by children in sport and physical activity would be the banning of smartphones in schools. The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, said just 30 minutes ago from that very Dispatch Box that the content of WhatsApp groups is greatly concerning. The Children’s Commissioner has said that many children are accessing harmful content through social media and chatrooms. A ground-breaking, large-scale randomised controlled study—the gold standard in social science—from the University of Pennsylvania now offers clear evidence that banning smartphones improves classroom results and, as a knock-on effect, improves extracurricular activity. The Government can no longer say they are waiting for the evidence. The evidence is there, and the Government should be acting right now for the benefit of all schoolchildren on this and on physical activity.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Well, I start by saying that I actually agree with the vast majority of the points made by noble Lords opposite, but I just have to say that we in this House are not disinterested observers of the activities of Governments. Several of the noble Lords opposite who rightly identified the decline in school sports, the reduction in teachers and the narrowing of the curriculum were supporters of or part of the Government who were responsible for it. I just want to put that on the record as we start this.

Having said that, there is good news. This Government are reviewing the curriculum and establishing a new national approach to PE and school sport. We value PE and sport as a great opportunity to improve not only the health but—

[Lord Addington (LD)]

I have one more question. If we are doing this for PE in schools, is there going to be a specific link to activity outside school? A lot of the sports education is done by sports governing bodies and grass-roots clubs. I hope the noble Baroness can give me some reassurance that that will be done.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I know that I added a little bit to the beginning of my speech, but I am actually only three lines through, and I will come to precisely that point.

The amendments proposed align closely with the important practical work already under way by this Government to expand access to high-quality PE and school sport for every child. We remain committed to ensuring that all young people, regardless of background, have the opportunity to thrive through physical education, school sport and physical activity. I also agree with the points ably made by the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Moynihan, about the broader benefits of sport, physical activity and physical education. The impact on academic achievement, mental health, healthy weight and sleep: those are all important elements of the broader benefits that come from children being active and being supported to move in a wide range of ways—something I thought about carefully as I finished the Worcester 10K on Sunday morning.

[A noble Lord]

Hear, hear.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Thank you. If you had seen how fast I did it—or how slowly—you might not have been quite so impressed.

Of course, it is not only organised sport that is important. As several noble Lords said, other ways of moving our bodies, including dancing, are also beneficial, although people who saw my performance on “Strictly” would not necessarily recognise any benefit that I gained from it—or that anybody watching it gained. However, the point is that physical activity, the opportunity to move in a whole variety of ways and the requirement to make that as inclusive as possible are really important and at the heart of what the Government are trying to do.

In June, the Prime Minister announced a new national approach to PE and school sport. This new approach will establish a PE and school sport partnership network, designed to build stronger links between schools, local clubs and national governing bodies—to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Its aim is to identify and remove barriers to participation in PE and school sport, particularly for less active children, including girls and pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. The point made by several noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, about the need for this to be inclusive is very important. That is why we have recently announced a one-year grant of up to £300,000 to a consortium led by the Youth Sport Trust to deliver Inclusion 2028, a programme which upskills teachers to deliver high-quality, inclusive PE, school sport and physical activity to pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. This will be an important theme of the national approach as well.

Since the announcement on the school sport partnership network was made, the Department for Education, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Health and Social Care—here I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that, given the broader consequences, this needs to be a cross-government responsibility—have been working with the sector to co-design the partnerships, meeting with a range of organisations, including educational organisations and national governing bodies of sport, to discuss the key principles they would like to see in a new model.

Furthermore, the Department for Education is conducting market engagement events from 24 September to explore the procurement of a national delivery partner to design, implement and manage this new network from summer 2026. Procuring a national delivery partner reflects a significant investment in this approach. The market-testing phase will help shape the scope and scale of delivery, ensuring that any funding allocated is aligned with the ambition and impact we expect from a national partner. The intention is for the national partner leading the PE and school support partnerships network to distribute a significant budget each year to pay for targeted provision in local areas. The total funding for this will be confirmed as part of the department’s business planning.

In addition, we are working with experts to develop a new enrichment framework by the end of the year, highlighting best practice and considering how standardised benchmarks and tools can support schools. This will provide advice for schools on how to plan a high-quality strategic enrichment offer and how to make use of specific programmes to increase access to sport and arts.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I make just two points that I am sure that the Minister will recognise. Many in the Committee this afternoon have been campaigning exceptionally hard for improved opportunities for young people in sport and recreation, irrespective of who has been in government. One of the great aspects of this House has been frequent cross-party support for making sure that we try to improve the provision of sport and recreation. I do not think it is a party-political point. I remember that, soon after the turn of the century, possibly the most important influence on Tony Blair’s decision to move forward with the bid for the Games was a debate in this Chamber which had completely cross-party support. One needs to be a little bit cautious before saying, “Why didn’t we speak out before?” Many of us have been speaking out like this for decades.

My second point is that I acknowledge—and I am grateful to the Minister for raising the fact—that the Prime Minister has indeed come forward with a whole range of initiatives on access to high-quality PE and sport for children, equal access, two hours of sport a week and a national network to build strong partnerships with clubs. We are just putting into an amendment what the Prime Minister himself said in June, to make sure that it is actually done. It has not been done by successive Prime Ministers—I must admit, of both political persuasions—but not least by Gordon Brown. There were fine words, but it was never put into practice. Will the Minister be the first to support me in coming back at Third Reading with everything that the Prime Minister said when he met the Lionesses, as clear mandates, so that we can enshrine it in legislation and make sure it happens for the young people of this country?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

In the previous paragraphs, I outlined not only what the Prime Minister had identified but the action the Government are already taking to deliver on the objective that the Prime Minister set down, so I do not think it is necessary to enshrine that in the Bill, because, as I identified, it is already happening. I am not going to rise to the noble Lord’s point about—I shall not even say that I am not going to rise to it, otherwise I will do so.

On the noble Lord’s point about staffing, it is encouraging that PE initial teacher training places are all taken up this year. Obviously, that is important in ensuring that there is a pipeline of good teachers in this area, but there is more to do on quality, especially in primary schools. The PE and school sport partnerships will bring together the support available to schools and therefore to teachers. By making sure that PE has a central place in the curriculum, in the light of our curriculum and assessment review, we can cement its place in schools’ priorities. That will of course mean a greater focus from both leaders in schools and staff.

As I was saying, the development of the PE and school sport partnerships and enrichment framework relates to Amendment 502H in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. The Government are already delivering the co-ordinated action for which the noble Lord rightly calls, both through the PE and school sport partnerships and the enrichment framework. This has established a strategic framework, guided by evidence and collaborating with national governing bodies of sport and other key organisations, to raise the quality and standards of PE and school sport for all pupils across the country.

Amendment 492, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and Amendment 502J, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, call for a curriculum review to investigate how PE, sport and physical activity provision in schools can deliver relevant outcomes for pupils. The partnerships to which I have already alluded will seek to support schools in providing opportunities in and out of the curriculum for children to work towards meeting the Chief Medical Officer’s recommendation of being active for an average of 60 minutes a day.

Of course, we already have under way a curriculum review of the type called for by noble Lords and by the noble Baroness, Lady Sater. In 2024, this Government launched an independent curriculum and assessment review, which is looking at all national curriculum subjects including physical education. It seeks to deliver a curriculum which is rich and broad, inclusive and innovative. The review is considering subject-specific issues including physical education. Subject and sport stakeholders have had the chance to feed into the review on PE and have highlighted many of the issues that noble Lords highlighted in this debate. The interim report was published in March 2025 and highlighted the reduction in PE time, especially at key stage 4. The final report will be published in the autumn with the Government’s response, and I am sure that noble Lords will allow that independent curriculum review to present its recommendations.

I hope that noble Lords are reassured that we have considered all the issues raised in the debate today. The ongoing independent curriculum and assessment review, the PE and school sport partnerships, and the enrichment framework are already starting work to tackle the issues raised. In the light of this, I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

The noble Baroness rightly referred to the curriculum review that Becky Francis is undertaking, to be published at some stage. What approach are the Minister and the department taking to ensure that all the excellent work that Becky Francis is taking forward will be reflected in the Bill and that there are no inconsistencies or gaps in this legislation as a result of the timing difference between the Bill’s passage and the publication of the review?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I was referencing the amendments calling for a curriculum review and pointing out that there already was a curriculum review. Many of the points raised in the amendments, particularly the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, were about the approach to the curriculum; for example, ensuring that, at a primary level, we are developing the physical skills of children and promoting physical activity, and then, at secondary level, continuing that important work while also delivering a focus on competition and particular types of sports. Becky Francis’s review is independent, but from both the interim report and the evidence that has been provided and is under consideration, I know that is the type of approach being taken in the curriculum and assessment review.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this excellent debate.

I am not normally tempted to dive into the subject of swimming, but the noble Lord, Lord Storey, has tempted me to do so. It is always worth reminding ourselves—particularly, as he said, in an island nation—that swimming is the only sport that can save your life. That underscores the critical significance of physical activity, literacy, fluency and education in the example of learning to become a competent swimmer.

This Government, like any Government, want growth, and they face a very clear choice with these amendments. One of the key elements of growth is investment. There could barely be a better area to invest in than physical activity and physical well-being. The choice for any Government is to invest and reap all the social, economic and psychological benefits on the individual, community and country levels or to pay for the consequences through the NHS, the prison service and many other areas administered by government. These issues will certainly return on Report, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

How our children are assessed inevitably drives the method of teaching throughout the school system. Parentkind’s national parent survey revealed this week that already 31% of primary school children are expected to have a personal device for schoolwork. If one accepts that digital delivery of education is, for a majority of people, an inferior teaching method producing inferior educational outcomes, it remains acutely important that the major assessments, including the baseline assessment, do not move online. I see these amendments most definitely as seat belts, not red flags.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We have had a good debate on this group, which concerns education technology and device-based assessment. I thank noble Lords for raising the important issues of digital and technology standards for schools, particularly around inclusion, procurement and use of effective education technology in schools. I strongly agree with noble Lords that technology must be safe for children to use and effective to support learning, teaching and the work of teachers—who remain central and fundamental to children’s learning. I am sure that there are important lessons and developments about pedagogy that it is crucial to engage with, given the context of edtech.

Amendment 493 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and Amendments 502K, 502YI and 502YH, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, seek to regulate educational technology deployed in schools in England. We share many of the objectives set out by noble Lords to ensure quality and safety. This is a very fast-moving area and we are in the process of developing standards and ways to ensure the accountability and the certainty that those standards are being delivered. The Department for Education has set non-statutory digital and technology standards for schools. These help schools and colleges make more informed decisions about technology, supporting safer, more cost-efficient practices and new learning opportunities for students. Earlier this year, the department consulted on the future of these standards and in July published a government response to the consultation confirming our ambition for all schools to meet the standards by 2030.

The proposals set out in our response to the consultation explore accountability options for technology standards, considering appropriate accountability levels and reviewing standards where they may be cost prohibitive. More broadly, we recognise the importance of supporting schools to choose effective technology that is safe for pupils to use and meets educational need. This is why we set out in the response that we will continue to support schools and colleges with technology standards with a support service to plan their technology.

I recognise the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that, while it is important to develop a series of standards in this area and to revise them, that does not make life easy for schools. The intention behind the support service to plan their technology is that it will act as a self-assessment guide, so that schools can be much clearer about what they need to do and how to meet the standards. This will be supported by a multi-million pound investment in schools’ digital and connectivity infrastructure.

I have a specific point on Amendment 493. We think this would create significant legal and operational barriers for schools in England, as it is more restrictive than the current data protection framework, including the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. We think that requiring schools to hold all data on site would be a retrograde step that would not support greater security, which I think is the intention. It would have significant financial and environmental impacts for schools.

Amendment 494, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, seeks to create a new procurement standard for education technology for schools in England. This is a significant development aimed at ensuring that schools adopt consistent, secure and value-driven approaches when procuring digital tools and services. Our digital and technology standards already include specific requirements which ensure compliance with safeguarding obligations. We also support schools to choose effective technology that meets their needs and safeguarding obligations, through the service plan technology for schools, which I have just spoken about.

Amendment 502YH, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, seeks to establish a duty on the Secretary of State to set out the minimum standards for filtering and monitoring technologies and certification by an accredited scheme sanctioned by the Department for Education. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her previous engagement with me on this topic. I know that my officials are keen to continue their regular conversations with the noble Baroness and to continue working closely with her on this agenda in order to make progress.

The statutory guidance, Keeping Children Safe in Education, makes it clear that schools and colleges should ensure that appropriate filtering and monitoring systems are in place and that their effectiveness is regularly reviewed. In addition, the department’s digital and technology standards include a filtering and monitoring standard with technical requirements that filtering and monitoring systems should meet, which is to support schools to meet the statutory duties expected of them in keeping children safe in education.

Technology is moving fast, and ensuring that systems keep pace is a challenge that we recognise. In January, we published our Generative AI: Product Safety Expectations framework, which states that generative AI products must effectively and reliably prevent access to harmful and inappropriate content by users and maintain robust activity-logging procedures.

However, I share the noble Baroness’s concerns and those of other noble Lords. We know that a minority of providers do not meet the department’s standards, and we are actively working on options to increase provider compliance and reduce the burden on schools themselves to identify systems that meet the standards. There are several ways that we might achieve this, such as by establishing a certification scheme for filtering and monitoring products under the UK Accreditation Service framework. We will take the time to do a full assessment of the impacts and benefits of any new requirements to avoid the risk of creating burdens on the sector and limiting supplier diversity.

We must also make sure that we are supporting schools to meet the standards. We consulted schools in March to understand the challenges they face in meeting the filtering and monitoring standards, and while 98% of respondents stated that they were fully or partially meeting the standards, we continue to work through identified barriers to understand priorities for further support.

I recognise the point made by the noble Baroness about the depth of knowledge necessary to make that assertion and the shift of requirement from schools being expected to make that judgment through to a much clearer certification scheme, putting the emphasis on the certification of the product, as opposed to the requirement for schools to ensure that they are meeting the standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I just want to raise the question of timing. The Government, as the Minister says, are putting a huge amount of money into digital infrastructure and, as later amendments that she will turn to say, putting assessment online and so on. I am trying to understand why it takes decades to get the rules in place, and why we have not yet learned that we need to put them in place as we put the infra- structure in.

I will read the debate very carefully, and I respect the generous way in which the Minister answered, but I sit here as someone who has been fighting for nearly a decade for something that is still being promised some time before 2030. I am finding it very difficult to put that together with the idea that we are now making a huge investment in edtech, that this is going to be central to children’s lives and that the Government will be responsible for the outcomes. Many noble Lords across the House have said that we want edtech and learning, and to be part of this movement, but look at what is happening around the edges. It is being treated like a commercial market, not a pedagogical outcome, a safety outcome or, indeed, an inclusive one, as the noble Lord was referring to.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I hope that the noble Baroness will carefully read what I said. I was certainly not saying that. In my response, I have gone further in explaining the work that the department is doing to meet many of the concerns that she outlined than we have done previously. I am most certainly not saying that it will be done to the 2030 timetable. I understand her concern around regulation and accountability, and I have given some considerable steers, at the very least, about the direction in which that work is going—it is not to a 2030 timetable. Turning to—

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

Before the Minister moves on, I have a follow-up question. It is very encouraging to hear the work that seems to be ongoing in the ICO. What is the Minister’s view on why it would not be appropriate to put the requirement for a code of conduct on the statute book for education in the same way that it is in the Age Appropriate Design code for all other children’s data? Just to be clear, I value the fact that the Minister has been so open about the ongoing work, but those of us who have worked in this space for so long worry that things can change and that, without legal underpinning, codes can then disappear.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I understand that concern. Perhaps we can first make progress on the code, as I have outlined we are. I will write to the noble Baroness about this. I understand that this place is about putting things into legislation, but that does not mean that activity is not happening. The proof of the pudding may well be in the production of the code.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

When the Minister sends that letter, will she kindly clarify both the data protection and the child safety angles that she talked about, for which the Information Commissioner’s Office would have responsibility? Will she also explain how the pedagogical elements will be included, to make sure that these are both safe and effective from a learning point of view?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, I will do that.

Amendment 502YS, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to confer a right for parents to elect for their child to receive, complete and submit homework tasks otherwise than by means of a computer or a personal electronic device. The noble Baroness made important points about the totality of the way in which children might be expected to do their homework and the challenges for those children who might not have access to technology to do that.

I would be surprised if there were schools that were expecting children to do all their homework using devices. Nevertheless, it is still important to maintain the principle—rightly set down by the previous Government, particularly by Damian Hinds as Secretary of State—that decisions over the volume and form of homework are made by schools themselves, working in collaboration with staff, pupils, parents and governors. I am not sure that it would be appropriate for the department to limit the autonomy of schools to set their own policies on homework. But it is right that schools should consider providing alternative options for pupils to complete homework where device access is limited. They should consider the implications for handwriting and for the other ways of learning and completing work, which the noble Baroness was right to identify.

We understand the concerns around the potential harms of unmonitored and unlimited personal screen use, but it is helpful in this debate to consider the distinction between personal and educational screen time—they should not necessarily be conflated. It is a question not of screen use per se but of what children and young people are using the screens for and what activities that supports and—importantly, I agree—replaces.

Effective use of technology can improve education access and outcomes and reduce staff workload. We trust teachers and leaders to use these tools appropriately, which includes their use to complete homework. Beyond that, as we have discussed previously, it is also important to recognise that assistive technology can go a long way to supporting children with particular needs—a point frequently and rightly made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington.

I turn now to Amendments 502YT and 502YU tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Amendment 502YT seeks to ensure that secondary education exams are completed by hand rather than with a digital device, subject to specific exceptions. We are currently working closely with Ofqual to review evidence and develop policy on any potential future use of on-screen exams. There are already a small number of exams that are offered digitally—for example, A-level music technology; British Sign Language GCSE, which would be impossible to do unless it was done digitally; and some functional skills exams, which by nature of the point at which they are taken need to be done digitally—but Ofqual’s chief regulator has said publicly that any further introduction of on-screen exams should be treated with “extreme caution” and must be fair, proportionate and manageable. We agree with that.

However, it would not be appropriate to fix a policy position into legislation before the opportunities, risks and implications of on-screen exams have been fully considered in detail. Ofqual is responsible for regulating qualifications and examinations, and we expect that any changes to Ofqual’s regulatory framework would be subject to full public consultation in due course.

Amendment 502YU seeks to ensure that the reception baseline assessment is not administered using digital devices, subject to specific exceptions. It might be helpful for me to explain to noble Lords how this assessment works in reality. I think there is a general consensus that it is important for us to be able to assess the development of children at the beginning of their time in school. That is the point of the reception baseline assessment.

It is carried out with pupils individually. It takes between 15 and 20 minutes. Roughly half of it is carried out with a teacher sitting next to a single pupil, using the screen in a way that paper would not allow them to do—for example, to point at things and move them into different orders. The overall assessment retains the use of verbal responses. It retains the use of toys for questions in the other half of the assessment, which does not use a screen.

It brings benefits, including reduced workload for teachers and better support for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities using, for example, the assessment’s built-in accessibility settings. In relation to one of the points made by the noble Baroness, there is no expectation that a pupil has experience of screen use. The teacher can input the answers for the pupil if need be, because it is, in essence, a person-to-person assessment being carried out.

The new version, which was introduced in September 2025, had been trialled extensively with pupils and schools since 2018 and has been well received. A paper- based version continues to be available in circumstances where that is more suitable for the child. I hope that provides some reassurance to noble Lords. As the noble Lord said, I have responded to questions about this on more than one occasion. If we were to withdraw at this point something that has been trialled over a considerable period, with the trial having started under the previous Government, it would be difficult if not unfeasible to deliver a replacement in time to carry out this really important baseline assessment.

For all those reasons, I hope that I have provided some reassurance about the nature and development of this assessment. There are much broader conversations that it is obviously appropriate for us to have about the use of screens in early years settings and in schools, some of which we have had in earlier amendments and which I am sure we will continue to have, but I genuinely believe that, for this particular usage, removing it would be disproportionate, even given the concerns that noble Lords have expressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

Just before the Minister replies, I shall very briefly say that the principle of reviewing legislation is one that I think we have all agreed to and no Government have ever found terribly convenient. I hope that we can get something going and some commitment by the Government that they will look at what happens here, or some structure for reviewing what happens, because the unforeseen is something which no degree of planning now can ever adjust.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The amendments in this group cover a wide range of issues, including review of the Act, disapplication and commencement.

I will begin with Amendment 502YR tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, which seeks to protect a parent’s right to determine their child’s education in the event of a national emergency or an authoritarian Government, by placing judicial oversight above executive restrictions. This amendment would actually be ineffective as, quite rightly, Parliament is sovereign. Any law passed by a current Parliament can be changed or repealed by a future Parliament. Provided the education a child receives is both safe and suitable, existing legislation makes clear that most parents have the right to determine the form of education that best meets their child’s needs. We have of course discussed this at length in Committee and the Bill does not change it.

Turning to Amendment 502C, on reviewing the Act, I start by commending the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, to post-legislative scrutiny, which, as he identified, has been government policy since 2008 and part of the process for legislative progress through this House. I remember the discussions around putting it into that position in my last period of time in Parliament. I supported it then; I still support it now. In the interim period between 2010 and 2024, among the range of things that I was able to do, I was very pleased to be able to advise foreign Parliaments about the significance of post-legislative scrutiny, drawing on precisely the work of the noble Lord and the experiences of this Parliament in putting those into operation.

Alongside that amendment, we have Amendment 502YN, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, which concerns a review of the operation of the Bill’s measures. This Government agree on the importance of having an appropriate mechanism for the proper evaluation of the impact of legislation, ensuring that it meets the goals that it sets out to deliver, especially given the size and wide-ranging ambitions of this Bill in particular. I assure noble Lords that the Bill will be subject to post-legislative scrutiny in the usual way without this amendment. We fully expect that this evaluation will be carried out within the first five years of the legislation coming into force.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wei (Con)]

I thank the Minister. On my understanding, having spoken to those who know about the workings of the Regulatory Policy Committee, which the Minister said greenlit the Bill, in the last few years it has not been allowed to ask for submissions, on receiving a draft Bill, to scrutinise whether that Bill fits within the kind of good regulatory framework that we all would like to see. So the information that it had to greenlight this Bill was very limited indeed. If you cannot ask people what they think of the Bill, obviously any information you have is very limited and you can only go on what you have been given, which is further ammunition for the point that the Bill needs a lot of scrutiny, because it did not really have any before it was brought before this House.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The Regulatory Policy Committee had the benefit of our published regulatory impact assessment to review. Wider comments about the efficacy of the Regulatory Policy Committee are for the noble Lord to make to the Regulatory Policy Committee, rather than using it as a stick to beat this particular Bill. Frankly, as we are coming to the end—nearly—of day 12 of Committee on this Bill, the idea that it has not had sufficient scrutiny is laughable, given the time and care that was also spent in the other place, which has been massively exceeded by the time and care that has been spent by noble Lords in this House during the course of this Committee.

[Lord Wei (Con)]

Just to clarify, the words I used were, “before it was brought before this House”. The reason it has had so many days of scrutiny is because it was not drafted in a way that was appropriate. We have spent so much time on it. We cannot believe how many nights and days we have all had to work on this. If we could have Bills in future that had a bit more effort put into their drafting by policymakers and others, we could use the time of this House really well. I am not in any way criticising or saying that the work of this House is wasted. In fact, it has been very necessary to get us to where we are today.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that noble Lords have spent considerable hours on this—some more than others, I think it is fair to say.

Amendment 505C, tabled by my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie, seeks assurances, via a published statement, on how the Human Rights Act 1998 applies to private providers of publicly funded children’s social care services. The amendment seeks a pause in the commencement of Clauses 12 to 18 of the Bill until such a statement is made. These clauses cover measures relating to provider and financial oversight, profit caps, Ofsted and Secretary of State powers to impose monetary penalties, and information sharing between Ofsted and the Secretary of State.

I thank my noble friend for bringing important human rights considerations to our attention. Protecting the human rights of all children is of paramount importance, and the Bill is delivering a number of important measures to stop vulnerable children falling through cracks in services. I completely understand the reasoning behind my noble friend’s amendment and would like to provide the Committee with reassurances on the robustness and broad applicability of the human rights legal framework, including for children’s social care services.

Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 makes it unlawful for public authorities to act incompatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights, and this duty extends to private providers when they are performing functions of a public nature. There is no statutory definition of “functions of a public nature”, but relevant factors considered by the courts include the extent to which the body, in carrying out the relevant function, is publicly funded, exercising statutory powers, taking the place of central government or local authorities, or providing a public service. This broad-scope approach is intentional to ensure that a wide range of services can be captured, as appropriate.

Any statement that the Government make, as proposed by my noble friend, would not be legally binding. Whether a provider is carrying out functions of a public nature and is therefore in scope of the Human Rights Act is for the courts to determine, based on the facts in each specific case. However, to be clear, the Government’s position is that, were a court required to decide whether the private provision of core children’s social care services—services that local authorities are legally required to provide—falls in scope of the Human Rights Act 1998, we believe that the court would conclude that they were indeed performing a function of a public nature and would therefore be in scope.

My noble friend has identified the distinction between the approach taken here and that taken in the Mental Health Bill. As he said, the DHSC is making it explicit in that Bill that certain mental health services are deemed to be exercising a public function for the purposes of the Human Rights Act, but those amendments are being made following case law that identified a gap in the application of the HRA to the private provision of the services in question—some of which my noble friend referenced, I think.

No such gap has been identified through case law in relation to private provision of children’s social care services. Therefore, our view is that no clarification of the law is necessary for these services and, as I have emphasised, we continue to be of the view that the private provision of core children’s social care services would be considered to be within scope of the Human Rights Act. I suspect that, in pushing me, my noble friend might say, “Why don’t we take a belt-and-braces approach here, anyway?” The issue is that attempting to provide further specificity around certain services risks other services being unintentionally excluded by virtue of their omission. This is the way, as I understand it, that lawyers tend to work.

I emphasise again that we are content that the Human Rights Act as drafted is flexible enough to capture those functions that need to be within scope of the Human Rights Act 1998. We believe that would be upheld in any case with respect to children’s social care services. It is also important to remember that children’s social care is a highly regulated sector, subject to inspection and accountability processes aimed at keeping children safe and promoting their best interests. The local authority arranging or funding the relevant service would also always be within scope of the Human Rights Act in the exercise of its functions as a core public authority.

On this basis, I hope my noble friend might be reassured. We do not consider it necessary or appropriate to delay the commencement of other important Bill measures that are designed to ensure children in relevant settings are protected. We are confident in the existing legal framework and hope that we have provided the necessary reassurances and statements here today to reassure him. I hope, given my responses, that noble Lords would feel able to not press their amendments.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that very full response to Amendment 505C. I am not a lawyer, so I cannot say at this stage whether I accept the reassurance. I would like the opportunity to discuss it with her before Report, perhaps with some legal support on those points. She and her team have clearly gone into it deeply, and I appreciate that.

In closing, my noble friend talked about the extent to which this Bill has been subjected to scrutiny in Committee. I have been here 22 years now, and do not remember any Bill having had 12 days in Committee. I checked and we started this Committee on 20 May, fully four months ago, so I do not think anybody can say it has not had proper scrutiny. I would just like to draw an analogy. My noble friend mentioned earlier that she ran a 10K at the weekend, I imagine that must have felt like a walk in the park compared to steering this Bill through. I thank her and her other ministerial colleagues and Whips for the way in which they have approached it.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am more than happy to meet my noble friend and to bring those legal minds with me that I hope will enable him to be reassured. Given that this is the last group that I will be responding to today, I also thank him for what he has said about this Committee stage. It has been lengthy, but usually carried out in a respectful, amicable and constructive way. For that, I particularly thank the opposition Front Benches and, obviously, my excellent Whip and co-responder my noble friend Lady Blake. I agree with my noble friend that I do not think anybody could say that we have not done our jobs as legislators in this place in well and truly giving this a good going over, and I thank all those who have been involved in that.

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, given that, as the Minister said, she is just bringing to a conclusion her 12 days in Committee on the Bill, I was rather hoping that she may be a little demob happy and put aside her brief and accept the amendment.

I naturally welcome the commitment that the Bill will be reviewed within five years. For the reasons I developed, I believe that putting the commitment in the Bill is the preferable option. As I trust was clear from what I said, I do not believe putting such a provision in the Bill should apply to all or even most Bills, but only those that meet the criteria I detailed. Providing for such a scrutiny imposes a valuable discipline in drafting the measure, stimulating Ministers to think about the criteria by which one would know whether an Act had actually achieved what it was intended to achieve. That is not always clear. It would also demonstrate the Government’s confidence in the Bill to achieve its purpose.

The arguments for doing this, as I said, are the same as those accepted by the Government on the Football Governance Act. This is an important issue, not least for the health of the statute book. We rather miss the significance of such provisions, along with commencement orders, by sticking them at the end of Bills. I think we need to look at that again, but that is a matter I will pursue on another day. Given the importance of ensuring good law, I may return to the issue on Report, but for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

503: Clause 65, page 123, line 33, at end insert—
“(b) section (Employment of children in Scotland) extends to Scotland only.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the clause inserted after clause 26 (by my amendment) to extend to Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

506: Clause 66, page 124, line 19, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) Subject to subsection (1), the following come into force, in relation to Wales, on such day as the Welsh Ministers may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint—(a) section (Employment of children in England and Wales);(b) sections 30 to 35 and Schedule 2.(3A) Subject to subsection (1), section (Employment of children in Scotland) comes into force on such day as the Scottish Ministers may by regulations appoint.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for certain provision for Wales or Scotland to be brought into force by (respectively) the Welsh Ministers or Scottish Ministers.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

507: Clause 66, page 124, line 22, leave out “(3)” and insert “(3A)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 66 inserting new subsection (3A).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

510: Clause 66, page 124, line 24, after “(3)” insert “, (3A)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 66 inserting new subsection (3A).

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard, this group and the next one cover a range of issues in relation to admissions. My sense is that most of the amendments in this group are not really needed in practice, but the Minister will no doubt clarify.

In relation to Amendment 449 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, as my noble friend made clear, each individual school publishes its admissions policy on its website. I accept his point that local authorities no longer publish as many comprehensive booklets as perhaps they once did. It is reasonable to expect that parents should be able to look at different websites and the admissions policies of the schools that they are interested in sending their children to.

Turning to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, my understanding is that under the fair access protocol, children in need of a school place will be found one. While I absolutely respect the noble Baroness’s concerns about the groups of children she described, I am not sure it is helpful that we should place a priority on one group of children over another, but rather that we see the right to education as fundamental for every child.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering’s Amendment 455 relates to admissions policies for children living in rural areas. My noble friend raised some valid points about the financial pressures that rural schools, and in particular very small rural schools, face, but I am just not sure that it would be appropriate for an analysis of those policies to be done in the department.

I turn to Amendment 456 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie. The noble Lord raises a valid point. There is a change in policy happening around the future ability of maintained free schools—although they will not be free schools in the sense that many of us understand—to be available, and that is different from what exists today for academies. So it is entirely fair of the noble Lord to probe the Government’s thinking on this.

As we heard, Amendment 457 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on school admissions policies, including an analysis of the proportion of places allocated based on faith-related criteria. Of course, as I said earlier, schools already publish their admissions policy, but I do not think they publish the outcomes in relation to faith-related criteria. Again, I am slightly puzzled about the value of doing this nationally as, obviously, parents typically look at schools in a pretty narrow geographic area close to where they live.

Finally, in relation to Amendment 475, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that off-rolling is not acceptable. In 2019, Ofsted defined off-rolling as

“the practice of removing a pupil from the school roll without using a permanent exclusion, when the removal is primarily in the best interests of the school, rather than the best interests of the pupil. This includes pressuring a parent to remove their child from the school roll”.

That aspect is clearly in the sights of the inspectorate, so I do not think that the noble Lord’s amendment is needed. The noble Lord also raised much wider issues around attendance, which go far beyond that definition of off-rolling, and I think that the new inspection framework from Ofsted, with its emphasis on inclusion, might serve to reassure the noble Lord that that continues to be in the sights of those who are responsible for holding our schools to account.

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

My Lords, the amendments in this first group cover admissions and related issues in relation to these clauses. This package of measures will help to ensure that decisions on place planning and admissions support the needs of communities and families while also supporting local authorities to deliver their statutory functions.

I turn first to Amendment 449 from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 457 from the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, which seek to ensure that admissions information is available to all parents. They would require the Secretary of State to publish information about schools admissions arrangements, including any faith-based arrangements. I hope to provide some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Admissions authorities are already required by the statutory school admissions code to publish their admissions arrangements on their school’s website, including the proportion of places that will be prioritised for pupils of faith, and ensure that parents can easily understand how admissions arrangements will be satisfied.

Admissions authorities must also provide information to enable local authorities to publish an annual admissions prospectus for parents. The code requires local authorities to publish this information for all schools via a composite prospectus. We believe that the existing approach is proportionate, reflects the diversity of admission arrangements and local circumstances and is not overly burdensome on schools or local authorities, while enabling parents to access the information they need about their local schools.

Amendment 455, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, seeks to insert a new clause to require a review of rural schools’ admissions policies. The admissions system already contains mechanisms to ensure that admissions policies meet local needs, including the policies of rural schools. Admissions authorities must consult locally before making changes, and anyone who considers a school’s admissions policy to be unfair or unlawful can object to the Schools Adjudicator.

Furthermore, our school travel policy ensures that no child is prevented from accessing education by a lack of transport. Local authorities must arrange free travel for children attending their nearest suitable school who could not walk there because of the distance or their special educational needs, disability or mobility problems, or due to route safety. The Government have also set out a plan to deliver better bus services and drive opportunity to underserved regions.

The noble Baroness talked in particular about the issue of the rural services delivery grant. In relation to that, the Government are committed to tackling the issues that matter to rural communities. We are allocating funding through improved needs formulae in 2025-26 to target funding where it is needed the most, investing in the priority services that people rely on the most. Places with significant rural populations will receive on average an almost 6% increase in their core spending power this financial year—a real-terms increase—and no council will see a reduction.

The rural services delivery grant does not properly account for need. In fact, many predominantly rural councils receive nothing from it. That is clearly not right. The Government consulted on proposals to repurpose this funding in the usual way, in the provisional 2025-26 settlement, but the Government are nevertheless keen to hear from councils about how best to consider the impact of rurality on the cost of services as part of the longer-term consultation on local authority funding reform, which was published in June.

Amendment 456 in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson seeks to apply the 50% faith admissions cap to new state-funded schools designated as having a faith character. We greatly value the contribution that faith schools make to our schools system and support the ability of faith schools to set faith-based oversubscription criteria. This can support parents wishing to have their child educated in line with their religious beliefs; it is for the admissions authorities of individual schools to decide whether to adopt such arrangements.

Many faith schools are oversubscribed, which suggests that parents value and want these schools. We also understand that the ability of faith schools to prioritise children of faith when they are oversubscribed—and of course it is only at the point at which a school is oversubscribed that these admissions criteria would bite—is important and, at the risk of disappointing my noble friends and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, we do not intend to change that approach at this time.

Removing the legal presumption that all new schools should be academies, which is what has brought about this issue, is intended to give local authorities the flexibility to make the best decisions to meet the needs of their communities. Decision-makers will carefully consider proposals from all groups and commission the right new schools to meet need and to ensure every child has the opportunity to achieve—

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I do not feel that my noble friend the Minister has answered the questions asked by my noble friend Lord Watson asked about why this is a change. I do not expect to make any progress right now, but I do think that, before Report, we will need to discuss it further.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am certainly happy to write to my noble friends and perhaps facilitate the opportunity for them to meet the new Schools Minister to discuss this particular issue.

I was in the process of saying that this relates to the new provisions around opening schools. In doing that, decision-makers will carefully consider proposals from all groups and commission the right new schools to meet need and to ensure every child has the opportunity to achieve and to thrive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Storey (LD)]

The Minister, when referring to Amendment 456 from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said there were no plans to make a change “at this time”. What does she mean by that? Does that mean that the Government will consider it in the future or that it is not going to happen at all?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I think I was pretty clear about the position that the Government take with respect to the admissions arrangements of faith schools, and it is not intended to change that.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

But the Government are changing that, my Lords. I was part of the debates where we arrived at the 50% figure. I remember the Catholic schools playing a very strong part in that debate. It was very much understood that the schools created could quite clearly have a strong religious character and be directed and run in that way but not becoming isolated parts of the community, fracturing it and separating it. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, one has only to look at Northern Ireland to see the difficulties caused by a fully segregated system.

We agreed a system for avoiding that. Why are the Government now going back on it? Where is the argument coming from? It does not appear to be coming from the Church of England—the right reverend Prelate has been silent on these amendments. We have not heard any other religious voices saying, “Thank you so much, this is what we want”. Who has been lobbying for this? Where is the pressure coming from for the Government to give in and make this change? It is not at all obvious—and the Government are not being open or clear about—what the motivation is or what outcome they wish for. Presumably, they are hoping that a collection of 100% religious character schools will be founded over the next year or two. Where are those schools intended to be? What kind of schools are they looking at? What future are the Government letting us in for? I really think they owe us some clarity and some openness on this so that we can understand what they are doing and what they intend to do to our society.

This is a really important set of issues. Binding us together as a nation has never been more important. We are threatened from various angles now. Why are the Government adding to that dissolution of our nation? I can see that I am not going to get anything out of the Minister now.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I will respond and, as I said, I will write. The noble Lord is enormously overstating the very specific circumstances to which these criteria would relate. This is not an invitation by the Government to enormously increase the number of faith schools. This is a requirement specifically relating to the provisions about opening a new school contained in the Bill. I will write to noble Lords about that point.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I look forward to that, but I very much regret that the settlement that we reached should be torn up in this way.

When it comes to my own Amendment 449, it is all very well for the Government to say that there should be a composite prospectus, but there is not one. It used to exist, absolutely, but that is not what is available now. If you look for an East Sussex composite prospectus, it is not there. What is there is a confusing passage among a collection of documents and websites; then it is back to the school and off to here or there. We have produced a system where the really diligent, intelligent, motivated parent can find their way through, but anyone—

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

In that case, East Sussex is not fulfilling the requirements of the statutory code that I spelled out in my response. I would be surprised if that were the case but, obviously, if it were, I would be willing to look into it. The Government have made clear the requirement both on schools to publish their admissions arrangements on their websites and on local authorities to publish a composite prospectus about the admissions arrangements of all the schools in their areas.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I have not done a complete survey, but I am not aware of a single local authority that does produce a composite prospectus in the old style any more. I absolutely take—

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord might have put quite a lot of emphasis on the “in the old style” expression there. I think the requirement is for this to be on a website. I am not sure that production of a written prospectus for all parents is necessarily something that we would require in this day and age, is it?

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

No, I would expect a website or maybe a PDF, but something containing the information that is supposed to make it possible for parents to go to one place and see the admissions criteria and how they work, for all the schools within the local authority that they might be interested in. This is widely not happening, and nor is that information available on school websites; I checked a few as the Minister had challenged on that and, no, I cannot find that either. There is supposed to be a system, but there is not so, yes, I will take up her invitation to pursue this afterwards. It is important that we get back to a system where ordinary, hard-pressed parents can easily find the information they need to make good decisions for their children.

I very much hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me at some stage that the admissions information will form part of the school’s profile, as talked about in the announcement that was made at the same time as the announcement of the new Ofsted systems. There is real promise in that. I should like it if she could tell me more about the Government’s plans for what should be in that profile and how that will evolve; I should be very grateful. But, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

If the Government reject my amendment, which would simply implement their own party’s legislation, we will all be left thinking that we should judge the Government by what they do and not by what they say. What do all the warm words about academies mean in reality if the actions of the Government go in the opposite direction? This is an acid test of their vision. I support the amendments in my name in this group and oppose Clause 56 standing part of the Bill.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I turn first to Clauses 54 and 55, the latter of which the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, opposes standing part of the Bill. Together, they extend local authorities’ current powers to direct maintained schools to admit a child to enable them to direct academies in the same way.

There are important elements of this Bill that are about future-proofing the system. As I explained last week when talking about the nature of the national curriculum, if, quite rightly, a majority of our schools, or schools that are teaching the majority of our children, are academies, and if, as we do as a Government, we want to continue the progress to see more academies developing and opening, we need to future-proof the system. At the moment, local authorities can direct admissions in the particular circumstances in which they need to do so in only half of schools, and in the future in even fewer schools than that. The proposals enable the school admissions code to set out additional circumstances in which directions can be made to ensure school places for vulnerable children can be secured more quickly and efficiently.

Enabling local authorities to direct into academies without needing to make a request via the Secretary of State will help to reduce delays in securing vulnerable children a school place. It is right, as the noble Baroness says, that there is a route to direct into an academy, but that requires making a request to the Secretary of State and an average, as I understand it, of 38 days for that to be determined. That is a long time for a vulnerable child to be without a school place.

These clauses will also create a more streamlined directions process for children who have come out of care, or where the fair access protocol—the local process to secure places for unplaced and vulnerable children—has failed to secure a child a school place. Together, these measures will help provide a more robust and consistent safety net for vulnerable children, ensuring that no child falls between the cracks.

Amendment 452 from the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, seeks to amend the circumstances in which local authorities can direct admissions and places certain requirements on academy admissions, and Amendment 452ZA, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, requires local authorities to not take into account a school’s academy status in these decisions. Noble Lords are, of course, absolutely right that it is important that these decisions are made in the best interests of the child and that impartiality between types of schools should be maintained.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, as I had to go out and take an urgent phone call during the debate, I think it would be wrong for me to comment.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, this third group of amendments relates to the opening of new schools, including new maintained schools, academies and free schools, and the financial governance of maintained schools—but not to the noble Lord’s amendment about local elections, so I will not respond to that.

Clause 57 relates to how new schools are opened, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, opposes it standing part of the Bill. The clause ends the legal presumption that new schools should be academy schools. It requires local authorities to invite proposals for academies and other types of school when they think a new school should be established and gives them the option to put forward their own proposals for new schools. The current system allows local authorities to propose new schools only as a last resort or in very limited circumstances. Local authorities hold the statutory responsibility to secure sufficient school places in their area, and it is right that we give them greater ability to fulfil that duty effectively. These changes will enable consideration of any local offer that meets the needs of children and families.

Amendment 480, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, relates to the opening of projects in the free schools pipeline. I understand the noble Baroness’s desire—and the passion and enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who, as others have said, has played an enormously important role in improving the quality of schools for many of the children who need it the most—to ensure that the approved free school projects open as planned. I know that trusts and local authorities commit significant time and energy to supporting these projects.

However, noble Lords will also understand the need to consider carefully the use of a limited amount of school capital. Agreeing the amendment would commit the Secretary of State to opening all projects in the current pipeline, regardless of whether they are still needed or represent value for money. That is why the department is giving careful consideration to these proposals in relation to the need for places, their value for money and the extent to which they provide a distinctive local offer. It would be wrong to spend funding on new schools that cannot be financially viable while existing schools urgently need that funding to improve the condition of their buildings.

Amendment 481, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, would require local-authority-maintained schools to have an annual external audit. In response to the noble Lord’s contribution, I am afraid I must clarify that he was wrong to state that maintained schools do not have to publish salaries over £100,000 and that they do not have to submit three-year budget plans. Those requirements were introduced by the last Government in 2021 following a consultation put out by the noble Lord as a Minister. He has had more of an impact even than he realises.

I nevertheless understand the points the noble Lord made about the responsibility on all school leaders to ensure that public money is being spent as effectively as possible in order to maximise the amount that can be spent directly on supporting and educating our children. However, the Government do not believe it is necessary to mandate all maintained schools to have an annual external audit. Maintained school accounts form part of local authority’s accounts. A sample will be audited each year as part of the local authority audit process. Any maintained school that wants a separate audit has the right to commission one. We can argue about whether, as the noble Lord has suggested, auditing would save money. However, we are clear about how much it would cost. School audits can cost £10,000 or more—the total cost of separate audits for all maintained schools would be at least £100 million a year.

I hope that, given my explanations, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her clause stand part notice, and other noble Lords will not move their amendments.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I accept what the Minister says—that of course the proposal for new free schools has to be properly interrogated, et cetera— but it has now been nearly a year. She alluded to the fact that some of the issues may be around the tight funding. At the very least, could she commit to contacting the schools or groups that have put forward proposals, just to give them an update? In some sense, it is the not knowing and not hearing that is the most frustrating for them, so perhaps she could at least do that.

As the Minister well recognises, it is a huge amount of work to do this, and there will be local groups, schools and parents desperately wanting to know if these schools are going to open. Even if she cannot tell us today, if she could perhaps commit to some further information for those in the pipeline, that would be a welcome move forward from their perspective.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I recognise the point made by the noble Baroness and the need for trusts to have certainty about their projects as soon as possible. We will provide an update on next steps to trusts and local authorities in due course, and I am sure that others in the department have heard the reasonable points made by the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I am slightly surprised by the Minister’s response to this group. On the changes proposed by Clause 57, she repeated the point set out in the policy summary document about the importance of local authorities being able to meet their sufficiency duty, but she did not give us any examples or data to suggest that there had been instances where they were unable to meet their sufficiency duty because of a lack of suitable applications. Therefore, if I may, I will repeat my earlier request that the Minister write to me setting out exactly how often that has happened, maybe over the last five years, year by year, so we can get a picture of what this problem really is.

The Minister gave the House no reflection on the capacity of local authorities to deliver new free schools, no reflection on the conflicts of interest inherent in this policy and no real recognition of the contribution of free schools, which, as we heard particularly from my noble friend Lord Harris, have done really great and important work, particularly in narrowing disadvantage gaps. As my noble friend Lord Nash said in relation to the importance of the Latin Excellence programme, these schools have often been pioneers in raising the aspirations of children through the curriculum they offer. As we debated, and as I quoted in the debate last week on the curriculum, this is about opening doors for children—not moving the destination closer to them but building the bridge so they can get to that destination.

On my noble friend Lord Agnew’s Amendment 481, it is good that the Minister has the figure on the cost. I am sure my noble friend could negotiate that down given half a chance, but the real point is the one he made: that his trust has been able to unlock funding that gives three more hours a week to the children in that trust, or one year more of education. The Government’s accepting invisibility and probable financial inefficiency in local authority schools does the children in those schools a real disservice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, this debate has been very thought-provoking. I always want to listen to what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has to say; she always challenges my own thoughts.

We all know the saying, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never harm me”. But, of course, words can harm you—sometimes tremendously so. They can almost “destroy” a pupil’s resilience and well-being. I think about a little girl called Millie, who was eight years old and a very good footballer. Her grandad took her to play football every Saturday morning on the fields by Otterspool Prom. Because she was so good, the other girls became quite jealous of her, so they contrived among themselves never to pass the ball to Millie. Millie just could not understand that; she wanted to take part in the game, but together they bullied her by not passing her ball.

She went to the parent who organised and refereed the football; one of his girls was part of this little group saying, “Let’s not pass the ball to Millie”. He said to her, “Oh grow up. Go away. You’re a footballer, come on, you can take it”. She went home feeling completely “destroyed” and chose not to play football again. I tell that tale because we actually forget the bully in that situation; the bully needs help and support as much as the person who has been bullied. We often do not consider that in school policies on anti-bullying.

I just want to say to the Minister that when we briefly discussed bullying in another group of amendments, she mentioned that schools have behavioural policies. I was arguing that we should have separate anti-bullying policies, because—I think I am correct in saying this—not every school has to have them.

This amendment simply says that we should know where we are. I will perhaps criticise myself a bit—as did the noble Lord opposite. All these amendments are seeking more information, quite rightly, on racist incidents, bullying and so on. But who has to collect that information? The school. Who in the school has to collect it? The teacher. When we talk about workload pressures on teachers, let us be aware that, all the time, we are creating more workload pressures for them. Nevertheless, some of these things are important. Certainly, information on racist incidents should be collected; we should know exactly what is happening with that. We should also know about bullying incidents, so that we know how to react and where we should go next.

My noble friend Lord Addington made an important point, picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that while we might be good at collecting information, we are not good at sharing it—and it is a fat lot of good collecting the information if we do not share it with other people, particularly other agencies. I was going to share the details of why we want to do this, but the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, very eloquently spelled out the information that we were supplied by the Anti-Bullying Alliance. Those figures are quite shocking in respect of the number of children in our education system who are bullied.

Bullying comes with all types of events. I mentioned football but I could equally mention the sly little pinch every day from one child to another. I could mention a whole host of things. I think of my own friends, now are in their 60s and 70s, who were affected by bullying as young people and it formed part of how they behave and react to things. We need to address this issue, but we can do so only if we know how serious it is. So, despite more workload pressures for teachers, I hope the Minister might agree that this is an important route that we should follow.

I want to mention briefly, as time marches on, the amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. It is important: teachers and head teachers may not be aware of how many children have parents or a parent in prison. We had thought it was somewhere around 31,000 but, in fact, according to figures, the number of children with a parent in prison is nearly 193,000. That is something that we need to address. I do not want to go into all the details but I very much support the right reverend Prelate’s amendment as well.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a good, wide-ranging debate on this group, which concerns how schools deal with acts of violence against their staff, pupil behaviour management, and tackling bullying in schools, including incidents that are racist or faith-based.

Violence and bullying in schools are never acceptable. No teacher should feel unsafe or face violence or abuse in the workplace. The department will always support teachers to ensure that they can work in safe and calm classrooms.

All schools must have a behaviour policy to regulate the conduct of pupils, to help ensure that teachers and pupils are protected from disruption and, most importantly, that they have a safe school environment in which to work and learn. When misbehaviour occurs, schools can use sanctions as a measure to improve behaviour; in the most serious cases, exclusion may be necessary to ensure that all pupils are protected from disruption and can benefit from the opportunities provided by education. To provide some assurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, we believe that pupil referral units have an important role to play in this.

To reiterate the importance with which the Government view this, we have recently announced the launch of new RISE attendance and behaviour hubs, focusing on supporting senior leaders to develop safe, supportive school cultures with high expectations for attendance and behaviour. Their role will include using data to identify and address areas of concern. We have now appointed the first 21 lead schools in this programme.

Amendment 459, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would require schools to report acts of violence against staff to the police. I want to be completely clear that, as I have already said, all forms of violence against school staff should be taken seriously. It is never acceptable for anyone to be harassed, intimidated or attacked.

The primary duty to take reasonable care for the health and safety of all employees rests with the employer. The employer is responsible for doing what is reasonably practicable to ensure the health, safety and welfare at work of all employees and should take appropriate action where they are aware of any matters that could detract from that. Where violence is involved, schools should take immediate and appropriate action. Should the incident constitute a potential criminal offence, it would be for the school employer to consider involving the police, having followed the advice in WHEN TO CALL THE POLICE Guidance for Schools & Colleges from the National Police Chiefs’ Council, written in partnership with the department and the Home Office. Given those provisions and that guidance, we fear that this amendment would be likely to impose additional burdens on schools without necessarily strengthening protections for staff.

Amendment 464, in the name of my noble friend Lady Whitaker, would place a duty on local authorities to require schools to record and report racist incidents or faith-based bullying, and the action taken. I wholly support the views of noble Lords who have identified how reprehensible these incidents are and how important it is that action is taken within the school to identify and educate students about the significance of that element of bullying.

Under the Equality Act 2010, every school in England has an existing legal obligation to not discriminate unlawfully on the grounds of a protected characteristic. We have confidence in the seriousness with which head teachers take any incidents that breach this requirement, as these would. Further reporting requirements for schools would risk creating a new burden and risk unintended consequences, as some noble Lords have touched on, discouraging children and staff from disclosing to school leaders due to privacy concerns and increasing the threshold at which schools may identify and respond to incidents due to perceived risk of reputational damage. We want children to be as open as possible within the school environment so that head teachers and teachers can determine the appropriate action.

I will take Amendments 501 and 502E together as both aim to address the importance of tackling bullying in schools and recognise the profound impact it can have on children’s lives. Amendment 501, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, seeks to introduce a duty on the department to collect and publish national data related to pupils’ experiences of bullying in schools. The department already monitors young people’s perceptions of bullying through the annual National Behaviour Survey, and I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that that survey will continue. It enables us to develop our understanding of bullying prevalence and trends.

Amendment 502E, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, seeks to mandate the appointment of an anti-bullying lead in schools to develop an anti-bullying strategy. In my introduction to this group, I referred to the legal requirement for schools to have a behaviour policy. In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, the law is clear that a school’s policy should include measures to prevent bullying. Schools are held to account by Ofsted and the Independent Schools Inspectorate on that.

School leaders are, and should be, free to tailor their approach and this can include deploying a lead for anti-bullying. Mandating how schools meet their obligations to prevent bullying, particularly in terms of staffing, does not recognise the need for flexibility in schools to ensure that approaches can be tailored to meet the needs of different settings and cohorts of pupils. This in no way suggests that we do not take this issue seriously and that is why the Department for Education is launching a procurement for an expert- and evidence-led review into best practice on preventing and tackling bullying. The learning from that best practice review will inform the support to be given in the longer term by the new attendance and behaviour hubs that I have already mentioned. This approach has been informed by recent engagement with a range of stakeholders, including teachers, parents, academics, charities and young people, to understand more about the issues around bullying.

Amendment 502N relates to a very important topic and it is right that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, raises it. The department recognises that the misuse of seclusion in schools can have a significant and long-lasting effect on the pupils, staff members and parents involved, and we are committed to minimising its use in schools. Earlier this year, we held a 12-week public consultation on the draft Use of Reasonable Force and Other Restrictive Interventions in Schools guidance. We have listened to the views of the sector and taken the decision to pursue secondary legislation that mandates the recording and reporting of the use of seclusion in schools to parents. This important work is already under way. It is a significant and positive step forward for pupils and their families, and will support schools to have consistent, transparent policies on the use of reasonable force and restrictive interventions which aim to safeguard everybody within the school community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, a common theme of the debate this evening has been that noble Lords from across this House have recognised the pressures facing our special educational needs and disabilities system. It is a system that many families find frustrating to navigate, where too often the outcomes for children fall short of what they deserve, and where, as we have heard from noble Lords—I think including the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman—a considerable amount of money is being spent with insufficient evidence of effective outcomes. It is certainly a system which has lost the trust of parents. For all those reasons, I can assure the House that the Government remain absolutely committed to reforming the SEND system. Our ambition is clear. We want all children to receive the support they need to succeed in their education and to lead happy, healthy and productive lives.

The amendments in this group raise important questions about the support available to children and young people with SEND. First, Amendment 498, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, concerns a review of SEND provision in England. Although I thank the noble Lord for both his amendment and his obvious commitment and concern to improve the situation, we do not need another review at this point. I think we know, and in fact we have heard in this debate this evening, many of the failings of the SEND system, and there have been many reviews by the previous Government, by Parliament and by the National Audit Office. The Government inherited a system with significant failings, and we know that too many children and young people with SEND are not getting the support that they need. That is why we are determined to take action, and we are committed to bringing about a more inclusive education system.

This is a difficult and complex task. We are working with parents, teachers and experts that we have appointed. We are fortunate, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said, to have the leadership of practitioners such as Tom Rees in this job, and, of course, particularly to be able to listen to those with lived experience to make sure that we get it right.

I thank my noble friend Lady Thornton for her recognition of both the day of action and what that identified, and the attendance and the listening approach of my new ministerial colleague, Georgia Gould—absolutely at the beginning of her time in the role—who has been making sure that she is listening to the people who were most impacted as she takes forward the work that we are doing in this area. The details of our intended approach to SEND reform will be set out later this autumn.

Amendment 461, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, proposes the establishment of a national body for SEND. Once again, this is an important issue. As others have said, there is a range of ways in which we might want to bring national consistency into the approach being taken. The NICE idea is a nice idea. However, the important point being made there is the need to ensure evidence-based practice in what is proposed. I can assure noble Lords that that will be and is a very important element of the approach that the Government are considering. I do not believe another body would necessarily contribute to that at the moment. Our focus is on making the system less bureaucratic in getting support to children and young people who need it quickly and efficiently.

Amendments 502R and 502U were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, respectively. I appreciate them raising important issues around the quality and training of our staff, particularly mandatory training in SEND for school teaching staff and inclusive education standards for teachers. Inclusion lies at the heart of our work in the department, and our approach is vital in meeting the needs of children and young people with SEND.

All teachers are, to an extent, teachers of special educational needs and disabilities, and we need to approach their training in that spirit. In specific cases, teachers in special schools, for example, are already required to have qualified teacher status, unless they are working under an exemption. In compliance with the teachers’ standards, all teachers with QTS must be able to adapt their teaching to understand the needs of all pupils, including those with SEND. In October 2024, the Government also introduced the national professional qualification for SENCOs, a mandatory qualification supporting participants to develop the essential knowledge and skills needed to set the strategic direction on SEN policy.

From this month, initial teacher training will include significantly more content on supporting pupils with SEND and adaptive teaching. As others have said, all teachers need to know how to adapt their teaching for the range of students in their classes and to recognise special educational needs and disabilities in those classes. This is being delivered through the mandatory initial teacher training and early career framework. In addition, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has agreed to provide more training for teachers on SEND, the details of which are currently being worked through.

Amendment 491, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, concerns the establishment of a school mentorship scheme for children with SEND. The SEND code of practice is clear that all children and young people with SEND should be prepared for adulthood, and that schools and colleges should use a wide range of imaginative approaches, such as taster opportunities, work experience, mentoring, exploring entrepreneurial options, role models and inspiring speakers. In addition, schools and colleges are expected to provide careers guidance to all children and young people, including at least one meaningful interaction with employers per pupil per year.

We are also funding employer engagement activities, and we will consider the feedback and experiences of previous mentoring activity. This includes the mentoring pilot for apprentices with learning difficulties and disabilities, which was delivered in 2024 and explored what additional support young people with additional needs may require from mentors.

Amendment 502V, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, concerns transparency and the reporting of SEND funding in state-funded schools. As I said, one of the things we are clear about, aside from the question of additional transparency measures, is that the considerable amount of money currently being spent on the provision of SEND education is not delivering the outcomes for children that we would all want it to deliver. That was the clear message of the National Audit Office report. Nevertheless, I understand the point that the noble Baroness is making about how we can achieve more transparency in schools on how funding is allocated to SEND and delivered.

Ofsted’s inspection of schools of course covers how schools support pupils with SEND, but it is important that schools have autonomy over how they spend their core funding allocations, and we trust school leaders to make decisions that best serve their pupils. We would be concerned if asking schools to produce detailed annual reports of the kind proposed placed a burden on them. For example, asking teachers to work out precisely how much time they spent supporting children with SEND could result in increased paperwork and less time spent teaching. In this area, the call for transparency and clarity about the value for money and effectiveness and the outcomes that we are receiving from the money spent is very legitimate, but we need to be careful that we do not set up structures that actually increase burdens without increasing either real transparency or the ability to drive the most effective practice.

I turn to Amendments 502Q, 502S, 502T and 502W, all tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. They are aimed at preventing children and young people with SEND from unnecessarily entering the justice system. I thank him for raising this issue and for the important work that he has done on this. I noted his point about the Michael Seiff report. I shall certainly make sure, if it has not already happened, that it is brought to the attention of those people in the department working hard on this area.

In relation to Amendment 502Q, the Government recognise the importance of improving safeguarding and co-ordination regarding exclusions. However, the changes that the amendment would make to the statutory school exclusion review process may also cause unintended burdens, particularly on youth justice practitioners. In all cases, as we talked about in the earlier group, when thinking about exclusion, school leaders should consider early intervention to address misbehaviour before excluding. Any decision to exclude must also be lawful, reasonable and fair, including when there is police involvement or parallel criminal proceedings against a pupil.

Amendments 502S and 502T propose duties on schools to work with youth courts to provide assessments of SEND and support reintegration and rehabilitation for children post custody. We support the spirit of both amendments but believe that the existing statutory framework already provides mechanisms to deliver those outcomes. Local authorities have a statutory duty to establish a multi-agency youth offending team, with members from police, social services, probation, health and education. They are equipped to work with schools and other relevant partners to compile assessments and reports for youth courts, ensuring that children’s diverse needs are appropriately identified and responded to. In addition, youth offending teams also play a central role in supporting reintegration post custody. Their work is designed to provide continuity and consistency across services, and they are well placed to draw in education partners, including schools, where needed. Placing a direct duty on schools would therefore risk duplicating or confusing existing multi-agency working.

Amendment 502W proposes a cross-sector data management system. I welcome the intention to strengthen co-ordination across services and ensure that no child is left unseen or overlooked. However, we already have the means to understand the interplay between exclusions, social care involvement and special educational needs through nationally collected official statistics. These datasets provide a valuable foundation for joined-up working. On a unique reference number, I can reassure the Committee that this Bill already makes provision for a consistent identifier. We had important discussions about that earlier in this Committee. We have initiated a series of test and learn pilots to explore how best to expand its use across safeguarding and welfare datasets. These pilots will inform a careful and incremental approach to implementation.

The amendments in this group understandably identify the need for the considerable amount of work currently going on within the department—as I said at the beginning, alongside parents and other experts—in ensuring that we can improve our SEND system. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment, in the certainty that noble Lords’ contributions will be adding to this really important work and helping us to deliver the system that our children deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard, this group of amendments focuses on the important issue of the mental well-being of pupils and the roles that schools could play in that. This obviously needs to be seen in the context of an adolescent mental health service which is currently struggling to keep up with demand, and where waiting lists are all too often extremely long, particularly with the rise in reports of poor mental health since Covid.

However, schools already have extensive guidance from the department on how to support both pupils and staff with mental well-being, and there is a mental health hub of resources. The previous Government introduced and began the rollout of mental health leads in our schools, and my understanding is the current Government have continued with this. So I am really not convinced that more duties and standards and guidance, as proposed in Amendments 462, 500 and 479, are the answer, although I accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, regarding the range of qualifications one might want to have on a team.

We have also heard that we have some major red flags in relation to children’s mental health and well-being with the use of smartphones and social media and the extraordinary amount of time that children and young people typically spend on their screens. Once again, I urge the Government to address these root causes of isolation, loneliness and disconnection in our society, especially for young people, rather than introducing yet more guidance.

I am sympathetic to the spirit of Amendments 502B and 502Y in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Willis, respectively. Many schools are able to offer a forest school in primary, but this is something that school leaders need to decide on.

As the Minister mentioned, we introduced the National Education Nature Park when we were in office, with an emphasis on schools in areas with few or no green spaces, and I was pleased when I looked at the National Education Nature Park website last night that more than 3,000 schools have signed up to the scheme. That will give those children the opportunity not only to spend more time in nature but to gather a range of relevant skills, including data capture and analysis.

Amendment 472, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, would establish a national children’s well-being measurement programme. We heard the noble Lord make a powerful case for such an approach, although I note the concerns raised by my noble friend Lady Spielman and the suggestion that indirect measures might achieve some of the same ends. A lot of questions are put to pupils in the national behaviour survey regarding well-being, including about happiness, how worthwhile a pupil’s life feels, levels of anxiety, loneliness, bullying and more, and I think there is a case for looking at the range of data that is collected. If it does not meet some of the objectives that the noble Lord set out, perhaps we could dispense with some of the data collection and replace it with something more useful.

I was very struck when in office by the approach that is taken in Indonesia—the Committee cannot laugh at me at this hour—in relation to surveys of pupil well-being, which are completely built into its equivalent of an Ofsted framework. It is able to identify very quickly schools where pupils’ well-being is significantly better or worse than the average, which allows it to learn from the best and address the weaknesses of the poorest.

I am not going to speak to Amendment 496 unless someone tells me I should because I do not think that that amendment was introduced.

Finally, my noble friend Lady Berridge and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, reminded us of the tragic case of Benedict Blythe. Whether or not we are parents, we can all recognise the heartbreak of the death of a child, particularly where that death is avoidable. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, rightly pointed out the much wider and more prevalent issue of anxiety for parents of children at risk of an anaphylactic shock. I express my thanks to all the organisations in this area which have contributed to improving the response of schools to managing the safety of pupils with an allergy, particularly the Benedict Blythe Foundation for its work on the schools’ allergy code and the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation for its work on the allergy school. I hope that the Minister will be able to address the concerns raised in that amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, this Government are committed to improving mental health support for all children and young people to help pupils achieve and thrive in education. We also agree that all children and young people should have the opportunity to understand and connect with the natural world, and recognise the importance of supporting pupils with allergies.

On Amendment 462 on the dedicated mental health practitioner, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, this Government have announced that we will expand mental health support teams from 52% coverage of pupils and learners at the start of April 2025 to 100% by 2029-30. This will ensure that all schools have access to NHS-trained and -supported mental health practitioners. Additionally, funding of £13 million has been agreed to pilot enhancements to this service to support those with more serious needs; for instance, young people who have experienced trauma or those with neurodiversity or eating disorders. We will look at the experience of those pilots and how they could be extended.

The issue, as other noble Lords have identified, rests particularly in the numbers of mental health staff available to deal with the most acute needs of young people. This amendment would not add to the provision of mental health professionals, although the Government have committed to increase their number by 8,500, but switch responsibility from the NHS to schools. Schools provide a range of pastoral support, including counselling, but managing mental health professionals is not their job. Mental health support teams benefit from being recruited, trained, clinically supervised and having outcomes monitored by the NHS, and there is good evidence of their effectiveness.

Amendment 472, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, seeks to establish a national children’s well-being measurement programme. The Government are strongly committed to supporting all children and young people to achieve and thrive. To help us do this, we need to understand how our children and young people are feeling. There is immense value in schools measuring, understanding and taking action on the factors which influence whether their pupils attend, achieve and thrive. Around 60% of schools already conduct some type of well-being measurement voluntarily.

We agree with the noble Lord that measurement should remain voluntary for schools. However, we do not agree that a centrally administered survey, costing millions of pounds a year over this spending review, is necessarily the right way forward. We believe in measurement, but for schools to choose to measure, it is important that the tool they use is relevant to them and they can be assured that results will not be used for accountability in an overly simplistic way.

Therefore, we recognise the need for there to be consistency of that measurement. That is why the Government have already initiated a programme of work with similar aims, with measurement experts and providers, including from the Our Wellbeing, Our Voice campaign, and with the education sector. This will involve setting standardised questions for schools to ask pupils, including about their well-being, enabling benchmarking between schools.

We will go further and provide non-statutory guidance, including tools and resources, to support schools to measure in a more consistent and evidence-based way and, importantly, to act on the findings with partners to improve outcomes for children. We are confident that the adoption of a standard set of questions across the sector and publication of operational guidance will better enable schools to share data with one another and other local partners, to facilitate local benchmarking and joined-up community action.

I hear the noble Lord’s point about national collection, and in the longer term, we will also explore whether and how this data could be collected centrally to inform national policy. In the meantime, to further amplify the voices of young people, we have committed to publishing an annual data release containing collated national survey data on pupils’ experiences in school, including their sense of belonging, enjoyment and safety.

Amendment 479, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, would require statutory guidance for schools on whole-school approaches to mental health and well-being. The Government already provide guidance, supporting schools to put in place whole-school approaches. While itself not statutory, this supports a range of statutory duties in relation to teaching, safeguarding, behaviour and special educational needs and disabilities, which are key to identifying need, and working with external services to meet that need. These existing statutory duties, the support already available to schools and the work that we are committed to on the framework, measurement and annual data collection, which I have just set out in response to Amendment 472, taken together, will provide a sound basis for all schools to put in place whole-school approaches and secure the support that their pupils need. I will write to the noble Lord about the specific point relating to the training grant and the Government’s approach to providing additional support for schools to do this.

I turn to Amendment 500, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, which would require newly published standards for schools in England on physical and mental well-being; this point was referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Schools already have specific requirements to teach about physical and mental well-being, which are set out in the physical education national curriculum and the statutory guidance on relationships, sex and health education. Ofsted inspects the delivery of these requirements. This approach allows schools to develop their own approaches to supporting physical and mental well-being that reflect the very different circumstances of their pupils. Centrally set delivery targets could not reflect this difference.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, as the Committee knows, school attendance every day is critical for the success of pupils. During Covid, the previous Government introduced the collection of attendance data at a pupil level twice a day— initially on a voluntary basis for all schools in England and now on a mandatory basis. We have among the best attendance data in the world, which allows every school in the country to understand the patterns of attendance and absence within their own pupil cohort and compared to the other schools in their local authority. I thank the Government for continuing the work that we started in this area and commend the officials who are responsible for producing such accessible and practical help for schools.

I argue that the systems that have been built within the Department for Education and that are being used more and more by schools mean that they can already analyse the impact on attendance not just of a factory shutdown but—perhaps more relevant for today—of a tube strike, bad weather or many other factors, and pretty much in real time. Therefore, I am not sure that Amendment 426B is needed. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, was suggesting that there should be more flexibility for school attendance, but I do not agree with him. The evidence that the department has produced is clear on the impact of missing even apparently small amounts of time on, for example, GCSE results, and we need to respect that evidence.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Holmes for setting out the purpose of his Amendment 499. He will forgive that I did not quite understand it in the way that he had presented it. My understanding, which perhaps the Minister will confirm, is that a considerable amount of diversity is already accommodated within schools. I have certainly visited schools where children are able to take time out of the classroom, particularly those with an education, health and care plan—very often that plan sets out the details of the flexibility that they require.

More broadly, there is extensive guidance and practical help to local authorities, admissions authorities and all the other groups referred to in this amendment. The department has been particularly proactive in this area and has encouraged those schools that are succeeding in turning the tide on attendance to share their insights with those that are struggling. Very often, it is about those positive actions that they take, such as putting on more after-school clubs, for example, or calling parents, when a child has had a particularly good series of days of attendance, with a message of congratulations. I absolutely understand and respect my noble friend’s concern about this issue, but respectfully suggest that his amendment is not needed.

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

My Lords, this Government are determined to break down barriers to opportunity by supporting every child to achieve and thrive at school. We know the impact that any absence can have on a pupil. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is right that even small bits of absence, particularly when added up over a child’s career, can disproportionately impact on that child’s achievement and, of course, create disruption in the classroom for other pupils.

That is why I am very pleased that, thanks to the efforts of the sector, absence is moving in the right direction; children are attending over 3.1 million more days this year compared to last and over 100,000 fewer children are persistently absent. However, this still leaves around one in five pupils currently missing 10% or more of school, which is why, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, says, there has been considerable focus on this which, as she also says, builds on the work done by the last Government. In fact, she in particular has worked on developing the sort of data to enable comparison and monitoring of progress.

In addition, the department has developed an attendance toolkit, alongside the data tools, to help support schools identify the drivers of absence and adopt effective practice to improve attendance for all children, including the most vulnerable. We have launched an attendance and behaviour programme, with strong schools offering support to others to improve their practice. We have held 12 conferences, attended by around 3,000 leaders from secondary schools, trusts and local authorities to help drive that change.

Amendment 426B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, seeks to create a duty on the Secretary of State to conduct a review into the effects of factory shutdowns on school attendance. We acknowledge, as the noble Lord says, that school attendance rates in particular locations can be influenced by a variety of external factors. However, schools and local authorities are best placed to identify those area-specific issues and take steps to mitigate them. In general, the school year is structured to provide plenty of time for holidays and family time outside term time, but schools and local authorities also have considerable flexibility to plan term dates and can hold inset days and other occasional days at times of the year suited to the specific needs of families in their area.

Amendment 499 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, seeks to require the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice on attendance. I accept his point about the need to recognise the different needs of children in our schools, which we have talked about in various other groups in Committee. On his call for a standardised approach setting out the requirements and roles of those outlined in the amendment, there is already statutory guidance which sets out in detail those roles and responsibilities for all the institutions and persons listed in the amendment in relation to improving school attendance.

The department published the Working Together to Improve School Attendance guidance in 2022 following a full consultation and it was updated in August 2024. This guidance takes a “support first” approach to improving school attendance and is now widely known by the sector following extensive work by the department to promote and embed its contents and share best practice from around the country. It will be updated as needed in future. Introducing a separate code of practice, as this amendment proposes, would duplicate this statutory guidance that we already have in place, risking confusion and waste. I hope that, for the reasons I have outlined, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I preface my remarks on these amendments by saying that I do not recognise the Dickensian school world that my noble friend describes. I would encourage him to visit any of the schools that I have visited, led by the noble Lords, Lord Nash, Lord Knight and Lord Hampton, and my noble friend Lord Agnew. In case anyone is thinking that I think only about academies, at my school of joy, Stanley Road Primary School in Oldham, the children are bursting with pride at what they achieve, in a clearly very deprived community. I acknowledge and thank all those involved in delivering education and joy to our children across our schools.

My noble friend’s Amendment 426D seeks to create a mechanism for sharing best practice between local authorities on home education. The principle of sharing best practice is, of course, an excellent one, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Storey, when he says that it is perhaps disproportionate for the Secretary of State to require this report. There is nothing preventing local authorities trying to learn from one another already. Local conditions vary considerably on, for example, the availability of special schools between local authorities. The conclusions that could be drawn from the data that my noble friend suggests should be analysed could be misleading.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on Amendment 426E and the care that schools take to support children. There is a wider point here. It could be argued that a lot of particularly criminal prosecutions of a child’s parents could result in harm to the child, particularly if the child’s principal carer is sent to prison, and that is something that the courts already consider. My noble friend’s amendment would cut across many other areas of legislation and some of the principles that underpin our criminal justice system in a way that is not realistic. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify both these points when she comments.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly associate myself with the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about the excellent work happening in schools around the country and the enormous pride, enjoyment and achievement that children experience in those schools. However, I would add that, in last week’s lengthy debates—and in those before the Recess—on the provisions in the Bill on children not in school registers, the Government were very clear that there is a right for parents in this country to educate children at home. In fact, as we discussed, we are probably one of the most permissive regimes of any country in allowing you to educate your child at home. What children not in school registers are about is ensuring that the education is suitable and children do not fall through gaps by virtue of claiming a suitable home education when that is not what is being delivered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will keep my comments brief. We have had an excellent debate and these Benches support the aims of this clause: to ensure that children learn in settings, where they provide all or the majority of a child’s education, that are safe and regulated. I have a couple of technical points of clarification that might win the prize today for the most boring question asked of the Minister. I confess that I have read and reread the Bill and the policy notes and still do not quite follow it.

Section 92 of the Education and Skills Act 2008, which this clause amends, includes institutions that offer part-time education within the definition of an independent educational institution. I am unclear what the status of those institutions will be in future and why they do not form part of the revised definition. If the Minister wants to write, that would be fine. I am sure there is a simple and obvious answer that I have missed.

The regulation-making powers in this clause, if I have understood them correctly, are much wider than those in the 2008 Act. New Sections 92(3)(c) and 92(3)(d) seem to give the Secretary of State unlimited flexibility to redefine full-time education without proper scrutiny in Parliament. I suspect the Minister will tell me that it will use the affirmative procedure, but all of us know that that is very restricted scrutiny.

I am very pleased that my noble friend Lord Lucas has raised unregistered alternative provision, which benefits from neither safeguarding nor educational oversight, in his Amendment 427. It is extraordinary, as other noble Lords have reflected, that, rather like unregulated provision, we put very vulnerable children and young people in unregistered provision without any safeguards available. I agree with him that we would ideally have no unregistered provision but, at a minimum—this also applies to Amendment 451 from the noble Lord, Lord Storey—we would have some safeguarding regulation of those settings, even if children were going there for a short period. There is always the infamous “Dave the car mechanic” with whom some children apparently spend time. We should at least have appropriate safeguarding checks and I am interested in what the Minister thinks about that.

I now turn to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, all of whom have raised issues that can arise for children whose parents choose an educational path that aligns with their religious tradition. The Minister and the whole House have heard both sides of the argument very clearly today and the valid concerns that have been raised by faith groups about the impact of the Government’s legislation on their communities. Those were eloquently put in particular by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Lord, Lord Glasman—who I promise we will still listen to however much he speaks.

I close by aligning myself with my noble friend Lady Morgan of Coates. We want to retain what I think the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, described as the “precious” tolerance that many of us, including my own family, have benefited from this country welcoming us with, but also to ensure that the rights of every child are upheld. I hope very much that the Minister will put her not inconsiderable abilities to the task.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that she is right—those questions were very boring, but I am sure that they were none the less important. I will write to her to respond to those specific points. The rest of the debate, however, was not boring, and was also important. I hope that I will be able to respond to the wide range of issues that have been raised and the conflicting positions that are part of what we need to wrestle with in taking this legislation forward.

This group of amendments impact Clause 36 and concern which settings are and are not brought into the system of regulation found in Part 4, Chapter 1 of the Education and Skills Act 2008. It might therefore be helpful if I first outline the intent of Clause 36. As I say, the clause concerns the settings regulated by that framework. Among other things, regulated settings are required to register with the Secretary of State and be subject to regular inspection against prescribed standards. At present, that framework applies to independent schools.

Clause 36 expands this framework further. Under this clause, settings will be required to register with the Secretary of State if they provide full-time education to five or more children of compulsory school age or one or more such children with an EHCP or one who is looked after by a local authority. This change will bring more settings that provide a full-time education into this well-established and effective regime. Typically, the settings impacted by this change will be those that operate during, but not necessarily only during, the school day, and we will produce guidance to help those potentially impacted by this change understand what is expected of them.

For understandable reasons, a significant part of this debate has focused on the issue of Haredi children and yeshivas. I will respond to that, but in doing so, I reiterate the point that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, is just wrong in suggesting that this legislation is aimed at yeshivas. As I have said, this measure is about ensuring that, where settings are providing a full-time education to children, they are registered and subject to regular inspection and meet certain standards. I accept that there has been concern among the community, and I will respond to that now.

Let me be clear that this measure does not presuppose an inherent problem with a child being educated at a yeshiva or the quality of home education. It is about ensuring the suitability of settings that provide full-time education to children. On the basis of how we define “full-time” and “engagement”, we intend to produce guidance to assist people in understanding whether the education setting they run needs to register with the Secretary of State. It is likely that this guidance will be similar to our existing approach and therefore the starting point will be that settings operating during the day for more than 18 hours per week will be regulated. I say in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, that I very much doubt that she attended Sunday school for 18 hours per week.

I emphasise that in expecting institutions operating for those hours to register, there is no requirement in the Independent School Standards, or in standards akin to those that we will bring forward for these institutions, for a setting to provide a wholly secular education. There is no requirement for them to deliver the national curriculum, for example. In response to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, there is considerable flexibility provided around the curriculum. These standards are well-established minimum standards which already apply to many registered settings that do not consider themselves to classically be schools. The regulatory regime gives Ministers flexibility to decide on which standards apply to different types of regulated setting. We will carefully consider options on the standards that will be used to regulate settings. In doing so, I assure noble Lords that there has been considerable engagement with the Haredi community up to this point—I have met with the Yeshiva Liaison Committee and my officials have ongoing engagement with the community. My former colleague Stephen Morgan met the yeshiva community on these issues and we undertake to continue that engagement as we clarify the nature of the regulations and the extent of those that will be included within it.

It is right that full-time educational settings are registered and subject to regular inspection. This will lead to children who currently attend these settings learning in a regulated and safe setting which is subject to regular inspection. For that reason, we believe that Clause 36 should form part of the Bill and is an important improvement on the current situation, as has been recognised by several noble Lords in this debate.

There are several amendments which seek to further change the application of this regulatory framework. Both Amendments 427A and 427C seek to exempt settings which provide religious instruction. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, via Amendment 427A, appears to wish any setting which provides any form of religious instruction in addition to education elsewhere to be exempt from the regime in the 2008 Act. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, in introducing Amendment 427C, seeks to exempt settings which provide only religious instruction or guidance to children of compulsory school age, provided certain other conditions are met.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and others, that in this country we are rightly tolerant of faith education. I remember the arguments that my noble friend Lady Morris had in defending that principle when we served in the previous Government in the Department for Education. We should be proud as a country of the many faith schools that operate. That principle has been supported by successive Governments, and in each of those Governments we have seen support for the development of new faith schools as well as for the protection of those that existed. I hope no noble Lords believe that this is in some way an attack on the ability to deliver a religious education, either within a school setting or as a freedom for parents as part of their right to home-educate their child. This provision is about full-time education, not about the religious approach of the institution.