Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Barran. We have heard from a number of Members of the House about the changes that this part of the Bill is making. A fundamental rebalancing of responsibilities in social care is being carried through in the pilots. It is putting much more on to the shoulders of less-qualified staff. The reforms are intended to streamline the system and manage rising costs but, as my noble friend has pointed out, there are many concerns from experts such as Professor Eileen Munro and from many practitioners about the implications of inexperienced staff finding themselves doing child protection work, which, paradoxically, could lead to more Section 47 investigations, not fewer, which was one of the aims of the reforms.

Taking one step back, the hypothesis behind the reforms was the idea that the social care system had become weighted too much towards individual children in isolation rather than children in the family context, and that more of the support available should be diverted to families rather than given to individual children. However, little account was taken of the profile of the children most likely to be in the care of a local authority. They include children with severe disabilities and special needs, often children who are most likely unavoidably to live in social care as adults. They are children whose parents simply do not have the capacity to manage at home, even with extensive support. Indeed, the strain of trying to manage a child’s needs has sometimes fractured parental and other family relationships. More family support and more kinship care is often simply not a solution.

Then we have to acknowledge that there are some children who simply do not have a decent parent nor any other decent adult in their family and realistically never will have. It is horrible, but true, that there are children who simply do not have a family member able and willing to give them the care, attention and love that they need. We have somehow to recognise and face this.

A substantial minority of looked-after children are unaccompanied migrant children, typically boys in their late teens. These children are not here because they have a dysfunctional family network that needs support and intervention by our social workers. They need help, but other kinds of help. There are, of course, risks to these children, and there are also risks to others from some of them.

Together, these kinds of children account for a substantial proportion of the social care caseload, yet the reforms that are being pushed through do not acknowledge their particular needs. For all these reasons, considering all these kinds of children, Amendment 17 in particular, which would defer carrying through the full reforms until the full findings from the pilots and pathfinders are published, discussed and understood, and any necessary changes reflected, is important. It would be unsafe to proceed.

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

My Lords, creating new multi-agency child protection teams through Clause 3 is not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, suggested, about saving money; it is about bringing together social workers, police, health and education colleagues with experience in child protection to take swift and effective action that protects children from harm at the earliest opportunity. I hope that I will be able to respond to the points raised in this short debate, as we did at length in Committee and have continued to do since then through engagement, which noble Lords have acknowledged, including, in my case, directly with directors of children’s services.

Government Amendments 12 and 14 broaden the range of police staff who can work in these teams to include police officers and other police staff experienced in child protection. The need for this amendment arose as we talked more closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing to make sure that we were providing the scope for the correct representatives from policing to be on these teams. We are confident that this will improve front-line operational capacity through the right people with the right skills working in the team. Regulations will be clear that individuals must have appropriate levels of experience, seniority, qualification and expertise. I will come back a little later in my remarks to how we will ensure that those appropriate levels are delivered.

Noble Lords have heard me speak before in Committee—in fact, at some length—about the Families First Partnership programme, where we are investing £2.4 billion over the next three years to change the way that we help, support and protect children. One element of that—introducing new multi-agency child protection teams—brings a sharp focus to better multi-agency working, information sharing and decision-making. I therefore welcome the opportunity to address amendments relating to these new teams, to clarify what we are learning through the national rollout and how this will inform the future legislative framework on day-to-day operations.

I turn first to Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on the important matter of child protection for very young children in legal proceedings. Of course, as the noble Baroness identified, these are children who are widely represented in the system and for whom we need special care. However, Amendment 6 would require specific senior sign-off for the decision to end a child protection plan when proceedings have been initiated or care or supervision orders are issued for children under five. As I have outlined before, these plans should end only through a child protection conference, when multi-agency practitioners are confident that a child is no longer suffering or likely to suffer significant harm, and not automatically when proceedings are initiated.

I know the noble Baroness is concerned that children in these circumstances may fall between teams or services deciding whether staying at home will keep them safe from harm. I want to reassure her, and other noble Lords, that I am confident that reforming the system of family help, with new multi-agency child protection teams wrapped around, is about exactly this: making sure the whole system holds the safety and well-being of children as the number one priority.

I will now speak to Amendments 11, 13, 15 and 16, also tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. These amendments focus on the operation and delivery of the new multi-agency child protection teams. Amendment 13 seeks to ensure that the new teams would operate within the existing statutory framework, Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023, and that these teams have sufficient access to health safeguarding expertise, specifically in relation to the NHS intercollegiate document, Safeguarding Children and Young People in Care: Competencies for Health Care Staff.

I reassure noble Lords that these teams, as part of the safeguarding partners, will absolutely be required, under the existing duties in Sections 16E, 16G and 16K, to comply with the expectations set out in the working together statutory guidance and local arrangements. We are working closely with health, police and local authority national leaders to ensure that practitioners in the teams have the skills, expertise and knowledge they need, or need access to, to deliver effective child protection interventions.

On the specific point about the police, I want to be clear that the intention of broadening the category, as we have done in the government amendments, would not suggest that a volunteer special constable would be suitable for one of these roles, but we could envisage police staff who would be appropriately qualified. In fact, as I have said, regulations will set out the requirements for the skills and qualifications, including police representatives.

The College of Policing’s professionalising public protection programme is developing resources to make sure that the police workforce has enough of the right professionals, with the right competences, qualifications and experience, to work in multi-agency child protection teams. There are good examples of police forces providing expert staff for child protection work: Thames Valley Police deploys experienced senior police representatives to its local multi-agency safeguarding hubs, including detective sergeant equivalents. They are decision-makers and offer expertise to support their police representatives at all levels. Thames Valley will take this approach to staffing multi-agency child protection teams as well.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification. When I was speaking, she said that special constables would not be represented, and I think she has said that again just now. In the letter she sent to all Peers on 7 January, she said that, to Clause 3, the Government are laying two amendments to broaden which practitioners from the police can be deployed to multi-agency child protection teams so that it includes police, staff and special constables. Can the Minister explain that?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I regret that we included special constables. Given the criteria that will be set out in regulations for the level of expertise, experience and skills necessary to be part of these teams, I could not envisage a situation in which a volunteer special constable would be an appropriate part of these teams. I was about to reiterate that we are setting out in regulations the skills, knowledge and qualifications that all practitioners nominated in multi-agency child protection teams will need, and that these regulations will be subject to public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. In that way, we will be able to be clear about the types of people from those safeguarding partners who would be appropriate to be part of the teams.

Amendment 11 seeks clarity on the support that multi-agency child protection teams will provide to local authorities to keep children safe from harm. I have listened to requests to be more specific about what these teams will do in practice. That is why, last week, the department published a policy statement to give clarity about the scope of regulations for the operation of these teams. I hope noble Lords have had the chance to look at that. The statement makes it clear that the teams will deliver all statutory child protection functions, from strategy meetings to conferencing. The teams will lead investigations and make decisions about what needs to happen to keep children safe from harm and then hold agencies to account for delivering support. I hope the statement reassures noble Lords that we are working closely with multi-agency partners, and will continue to work with noble Lords and others, as we develop the regulations through public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny to make sure that these teams are the very best they can be.

Amendments 15 and 16 seek to allow the social worker and education practitioner in multi-agency child protection teams to operate on behalf of multiple local authorities, where teams are combined across local authority boundaries. As I clarified in Committee, local authority professionals in the teams must remain responsible for children in their area. This ensures that the local authority with statutory responsibility for the child continues to be accountable and that children do not fall between the cracks. Collaboration across areas and between practitioners will happen. In fact, Clause 4 creates a clear duty on all practitioners to share information to safeguard or promote the welfare of the child, regardless of local authority boundaries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I know this is semantics, but the point that I made about pathfinders is important. The pathfinders are trying out different approaches within the criteria and the framework set for them. They are discovering, as we suggested at some length when we talked about examples in Committee, different ways of doing things. They are also ensuring that we are doing this on a basis that will have the right professionals in the right place so that children do not fall between gaps—and in fact will actively close the gaps that exist within the system now—and from which we will continue to learn. I will come to the point about timing in a moment, because that is important.

I was just coming to the point about the round table with pathfinder directors of children’s services and representatives from each of the regions that I held to discuss the opportunities and challenges in implementing these new teams. I reassure noble Lords that I said specifically to my team in setting up the round table that I was interested in hearing not only from people who thought that everything was going well but from those who might be more sceptical as well. I have to say that I heard overwhelmingly from pathfinders that, while changing the approach to child protection has been challenging, the benefits of multi-agency expertise and working are already evidenced in the decisions and outcomes for children. For example, areas shared positive examples of innovative whole-family work enabled by multi-agency collaboration, and noted that more empowering and transparent practice has given partners confidence in the approach.

I want to take a moment to reassure noble Lords that we recognise the scale of the ask here. This is a complex national system reform that requires leadership, co-operation and commitment from agencies, and that requires us—the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, is right—to learn from the pathfinders. By the way, I undertake to ensure as far as possible that, as we continue, we are able to provide some of the evidence that the noble Baroness identified.

That is why, through the families first partnership programme, we are working, for example, with three police force areas—the Met, Thames Valley and West Mercia—to identify how we can create multi-agency child protection teams that align with policing footprints. This work includes over 40 local authority areas working together to create effective delivery approaches, and we will bring into that work representatives from health and education as well.

Finally, on delay, it is not the intention—assuming this Bill passes through both Houses—that the multi-agency child protection teams will instantly need to spring into action. It is not even the case, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, said, that we expect them to be fully in place during this calendar year. I want to reassure noble Lords that the provisions will not come into force before late 2027, following public consultation and further scrutiny of regulations by Parliament. We also have a comprehensive quarterly monitoring process to measure progress, impact and outcomes as the Families First Programme rolls out nationally and are working across sectors to share learning about what works. I just ask noble Lords not to slam the brakes on an important reform for which I think there has been considerable support, and on which work is already under way.

I turn to Amendments 250 and 251, on resourcing, funding and effective delivery of these teams. To be clear, as we were in Committee, safeguarding partners already have a joint and equal duty to work together to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area. The statutory guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children is clear about the expectations on safeguarding partners in making these local arrangements. Guidance will be updated in line with the new regulations to clarify what this means for delivering multi-agency child protection teams. Therefore, resource and funding are already agreed locally, and this will be the same for multi-agency child protection teams.

Once again, we are learning from the pathfinders. For instance, some areas are funding new roles; others are using existing or seconded resources, and some are using agreements between agencies to pool resources for multi-agency child protection teams. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seemed to suggest that it was wrong for different approaches to be taken in different areas. That is precisely the type of flexibility and local recognition of responsibilities in the way teams have been set up that is important.

The Children Act 2004 means that safeguarding partners can already work with relevant agencies, such as probation and youth offending teams, to support their arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Clause 3 will supplement these local arrangements and allow safeguarding partners to choose from a sub-list set out in regulations, which relevant agencies will work most closely with to support the multi-agency child protection team functions, agreeing this locally through co-operation memorandums. We say more on this in the published policy statement.

In Committee, I outlined the £523 million of funding made available in 2025-26 for national rollout of our children’s social care reform. Since then, we have confirmed a further £2.4 billion over the next three years. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that this is a significant and important investment that shows our commitment to reforming the system, to reforming it right and to improving protection for children. I hope, therefore, with the reassurance and clarification that I provided, that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw this amendment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I wonder if the noble Baroness could clarify two things. I apologise if I missed the first, but she went through a series of expectations for qualifications for staff in the multi-agency child protection teams and I did not hear her confirm that those would align with the intercollegiate document, so I would be grateful if she could confirm that in relation to health staff. Also, I wrote down that she said “these teams”— I was not sure whether that was the multi-agency child protection teams, the early help teams or both—will not be implemented until the end of 2027, which feels later than was previously projected. I wonder if she could clarify that.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

On the point about the NHS document on intercollegiate guidance, the point I was making was that we believe the provisions are already set out in the Working Together requirements. We will be able, of course, to set them out more fully in regulations; I am pretty confident about that. If I have gone beyond where I should have, I will make that clear.

When I referred to teams, I was in some ways shortening my speaking note. I think every time I did so, I was referring to multi-agency child protection teams. The point I was making was that many of those teams will already be set up and operating as part of the pathfinder process. But in recognition of the scale of the challenge, we are clear that we will take time to get the regulations right and continue the learning from the pathfinders, and to do that in a way that ensures we can all be confident that they will be successful. That is the reason for the timescale I set out.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness very much for that clarification, as I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. I also acknowledge the Government’s financial commitment to this programme.

In relation to my Amendment 6, the Minister said that a child protection plan should end only when there is a multi-agency child protection case conference. One could argue that under the Government’s proposed system, where the same social worker will work with a family but also chair that conference, there is the need for fresh eyes to look at those cases of very young children who are at risk of not having adequate protection and are not nearly so visible to society as those over the age of five, because obviously they are not in school. I am not convinced by the arguments the Minister made.

I am amazed that the Minister regrets she put special constables in the letter. I can imagine she is feeling a bit irritated about that, but I think a lot of people who will have received the letter are not in the Chamber, so I hope she will write to clarify that special constables will not be eligible, because that looked like a cost-cutting measure, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, alluded to.

In relation to cross-border work, I agree that one should not in any way blur accountability, and Amendments 15 and 16 aimed to introduce some more flexibility. But as the Minister knows, families move around a lot, particularly in London, so having rigid boundaries will be unworkable and more flexibility will need to emerge in future.

Turning to Amendment 17, whether they are pathfinders or pilots is semantics. I hear and absolutely believe what the Minister says about the Government seeing increasing commitments from some local authorities, but she is also aware that some very senior, experienced and committed people who want to see the best for children also have specific concerns. This was before my time—I am not for a second suggesting I would have got it right—but those who were involved in the special educational needs reforms and who introduced the Children and Families Act did so in the same spirit: to address an urgent problem that needed an urgent solution. However, without proper piloting that has ended up in a place that nobody intended. The spirit of my Amendment 17, together with the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is to avoid that happening again.

As I say, I am not convinced by the Minister’s explanation in relation to Amendment 6. We are talking about 65% of child deaths and serious harm occurring to that age group, so I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for his focus on bringing forward these amendments. They are obviously well intentioned, but His Majesty’s loyal Opposition harbour certain reservations. We of course recognise that safe- guarding arrangements should, wherever possible, be consistent across different childcare providers and settings. Many families both depend on and place a huge amount of trust in early years providers and nurseries. Therefore, approaches to safeguarding should be well co-ordinated and the relevant staff involved should be trained to a level where they feel fully confident and able to engage with safeguarding partnerships.

Indeed, only last month, Ofsted warned that early opportunities to identify children with special educational needs and disabilities are being missed. This can result in a lack of understanding of individual children’s situations, meaning that schools do not always take a flexible approach to their behaviour policies or make reasonable adjustments. There is of course a clear need for early years training to adapt to this emerging reality.

However, as was so eloquently put in Committee by my noble friend Lady Spielman, former Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills, there are key concerns about the capacity of providers to implement the proposed changes: namely, the majority of schools that on inspection fall down on safeguarding are small schools, primaries and special schools that struggle to cope with the complexity.

Given this, we are concerned about whether the amendments are feasible. While we believe in a co-ordinated, multi-agency approach, the inclusion of early years groups and nurseries to these partnerships may risk adding further layers of complexity that would not necessarily be of help. Nor would we wish the lines of responsibility for safeguarding to be blurred between ever more partners, to a point where it is no longer a functioning or focused local safeguarding partnership. No one would want the unintended result to be that safeguarding does not improve but administrative capacity declines.

These concerns remain about the implementation and impact in practice of the noble Lord’s amendments. Before the 2024 election, the Department for Education committed to setting out a timetable for a consultation covering education’s role in safeguarding. The Education Committee in the other place has recently launched a call for evidence as part of its ongoing inquiry to examine how safeguarding can be strengthened in nurseries, for childminders and in other early years settings under the early years foundation stage. There is yet to be concrete evidence to support the proposals here, and we feel that it would be potentially pre-emptive to introduce such amendments now.

These are obviously important issues which need to be consulted on further. We look forward to acting on the findings, as and when they are brought to your Lordships’ House. We support the aims of the amendments to support a holistic and thorough approach to safeguarding arrangements, but that approach must be evidence-based to ensure that providers have sufficient capacity and resources for this to work in practice.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

On group 3, particularly Amendments 7 and 8 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, let me be clear that I fully recognise the vital importance of ensuring that every education setting and childcare provider is fully embedded in local safeguarding arrangements. We are acutely aware of the appalling incidences of abuse that have occurred within certain nursery chains, and no one in this Chamber underestimates the gravity of those failures.

While I cannot comment on the specifics of ongoing reviews, I know that our thoughts will remain firmly with the children and families affected. I extend my thanks to the commitment of the honourable Members Munira Wilson, Tom Morrison and Tulip Siddiq, who have been powerful champions for the families and children affected. Their contribution underscores the importance of the reforms the Bill takes forward. It is precisely because we take this so seriously that we must avoid the temptation to duplicate duties unnecessarily, or to legislate in ways that create complexity rather than strengthen safeguarding practice.

I emphasise that the system already places clear multi-agency safeguarding duties on all registered early years settings through existing regulations. Clause 2 reinforces and clarifies these obligations by placing a duty on safeguarding partners to include education and childcare settings in their arrangements, and ensures that providers continue to take part in safeguarding activities. In short, the settings in scope of Amendments 7 and 8 are already captured by the legal framework and measures in this clause. Adding an extra layer of statutory designation risks creating legislative duplication with no clear operational benefit.

In addition, robust accountability is already in place, including through independent inspection and statutory guidance under the Children Act 2004. This ensures that relevant agencies participate fully in safeguarding arrangements and are supported to do so. Additional legislative compliance conditions, such as linking participation to funding or registration, are unnecessary. The existing framework, combined with the enhancements delivered through Clause 2, gives safeguarding partners the tools they need to secure meaningful and consistent co-operation across the sector.

I turn to Amendments 9 and 10, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. As he set out, the overarching aim of these amendments is important, and it is already recognised by the Government. Amendment 9 seeks to make specific provision for Ofsted inspection and reporting on nursery chains. Amendment 10 requires the statutory framework to be revised so that nursery groups must ensure that their safeguarding leads and staff are trained in, and engaged with, local safeguarding arrangements across all their settings. I hope I can reassure noble Lords that we are committed to reviewing nursery chain regulation, to improve market oversight and the quality and safety of early years education and childcare.

This commitment was first made in the Government’s recent Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life strategy. It was reconfirmed in the Statement that the Secretary of State made in the House of Commons in response to Operation Lanark, and I am happy to reconfirm it today in response to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey.

On Amendment 9, I appreciate the concern of noble Lords regarding Ofsted inspection of early years groups and chains so that safeguarding problems that span multiple settings can be identified and addressed at group level. Although Ofsted can already take action against settings that are linked by the same registered person, we are in complete agreement that we need further consideration of bespoke powers for the regulation of nursery chains to better safeguard the youngest and most vulnerable children. To that end, we have committed to working with Ofsted to review the regulation of early years chains. We expect this will very likely lead to recommendations relating to inspecting and reporting on chains. However, careful consideration is needed to ensure that we get this right before we make legislative change.

On Amendment 10, again, I appreciate the concern of noble Lords regarding safeguarding training in early years settings. In September 2025, we introduced new safeguarding training requirements within the Early Years Foundation Stage statutory framework. All early years staff must be trained in line with these, and designated safeguarding leads must know their local child protection procedures and how to liaise with local statutory children’s services agencies and local safeguarding partners. Any new requirements which would need to be considered at a chain level will form part of the previously mentioned nursery chain regulation review; they will be in scope of that review.

Given that, I hope that I have addressed the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Storey. He is right—particularly in the light of some of the devastating events that he referenced—to have brought these issues to the notice of this House. I hope that, given my reassurances, he feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her fulsome response. Like her, I have concerns—it is almost the opposite position to that of my noble friend Lord Addington—about large nursery chains, nursery businesses and large groups of nurseries run by a business where often decisions are made away from that individual nursery.

I should say that I was a head teacher and had a nursery of 100 places. If there was any issue, I was always on hand to deal with it and support my staff. I am wondering whether, if you have a nursery business of several dozen nurseries, you can have that immediate impact of change that might be required.

I add that after hearing about the parents in these two tragic cases, you feel helpless, and you want to do something. I pay tribute to them for, while grieving for their child, coming forward with ideas to improve the safeguarding arrangements. It is amazing that they can think of other children, having faced the loss of their own child.

I am very grateful to the Minister. She recognises the problem of those large chains and that we should work with, or talk to, Ofsted about how we can bring forward some recommendations in the future. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

12: Clause 3, page 4, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert—
“(d) a constable or relevant police employee who— (i) is nominated by the chief officer of police for a police area any part of which falls within the area of the local authority, and(ii) has experience in child protection.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and my other amendment to clause 3, at page 4, line 20, would broaden the range of persons with policing functions who may be nominated to a multi-agency child protection team, and requires a person nominated by a chief officer of police to have experience in child protection.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

14: Clause 3, page 4, line 20, at end insert—
““relevant police employee” means—(a) a person (other than a constable) who is—(i) employed, or engaged to provide services, for the purposes of a body of constables, and(ii) under the direction and control of a person who has the direction and control of a body of constables, or(b) a person who is—(i) employed by the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a police authority, and(ii) under the direction and control of a chief officer of police;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would define “relevant police employee” for the purposes of section 16EA of the Children Act 2004, inserted by clause 3, and as amended by my other amendment to clause 3, at page 4 line 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I will speak to the amendments in reverse order. We very much support having a single unique identifier. Unless the pilot of using the NHS number causes some unforeseen problems—we hope that that would not happen—we believe that it makes absolute sense to use the NHS number to link health and education. It is also important for children’s safeguarding: we need to know where they are, what is happening to them and when they change schools. It rightly brings added responsibility to schools, headteachers and governors.

We also believe that Amendment 19 is important. When there is a multi-agency approach, it is important that information and understanding are shared between different teams when cases are passed between them. This amendment rightly highlights the problem and comes up with a way forward.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We are cooking with gas today. We are all fresh—at this point.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, there has been strong interest in provisions to improve information sharing for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. I agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and others that information sharing is a necessary but not sufficient determinant of whether we have an effective practice. As others have identified, it is enormously important and has too often been lacking in cases where children have come to harm. It must be a basis for action.

The call for improved information sharing includes the long-requested introduction of a consistent identifier for children which mirrors provision for adults introduced as far back as 2015. As we have heard, there is broad support for these measures, with concerns focused on ensuring that they can be implemented successfully, appropriately and as soon as possible. The government amendments in this group aim to provide further clarity.

Amendment 19, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to require safeguarding partners to establish practical multi-agency arrangements for initial information sharing before Section 47 thresholds can be determined. As the amendment suggests, clear information sharing processes are crucial. However, as I have previously suggested, that needs to be followed by action, which is why safeguarding partners must already publish their multi agency arrangements, including how they identify and respond to children’s needs. Therefore, the requirements set out in the amendment would duplicate existing requirements. Local leaders must retain flexibility to establish effective systems for their context, including how information flows between services.

I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that it is neither our intention nor our belief that the legislation as currently drafted implies a one-way flow only—it does not. It determines precisely the sort of flows of information, backwards and forwards, that the noble Baroness rightly identified as fundamental to this being a success.

In addition to the existing requirements to publish multi-agency arrangements, prior to commencement we will consult on and publish statutory guidance, including a template data-sharing agreement, to help partners agree information flows and ensure timely and consistent information sharing within and across agencies. I hope that that provides the assurance that the noble Baroness was looking for.

I support the sentiment behind Amendment 23, also from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran: to broaden the consistent identifier regulation-making powers to ensure scrutiny of how the consistent identifier operates and which number is used. Government Amendment 21, introducing an information standard, and government Amendment 26, introducing a code of practice, also support the effective operation of the consistent identifier but are more focused.

As I already set out in Committee, we are piloting the NHS number only. We want to be assured of the benefits and information governance before naming a consistent identifier in legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

20: Clause 4, page 7, leave out lines 16 and 17
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 4, page 7, lines 11 to 14.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

24: Clause 4, page 8, leave out lines 10 to 13
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove provision no longer needed because of the protection provided by the new general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and which came into force on 20 August 2025.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, made a compelling case for the value of child contact centres in and of themselves and for the importance of having clear minimum standards, and achieving that through additional training and accreditation. I felt that the Minister gave a good answer in Committee on this specific case, when she highlighted the role of the National Association of Child Contact Centres. I do not in any way disagree with the aims of the amendment, but, having worked in a charity that did a lot of training and accreditation, my experience is that we can place too much weight on it and what it can achieve.

The point the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, made about unregistered contact centres is extremely important. Anything the Minister can say that would ensure that courts and magistrates have absolute clarity about whether a centre is or is not registered would be critical. If we are going to go down this route, having simple links for contact centres with their local specialist services, whether they be specialist domestic abuse services, drug and alcohol services, or whatever the issue is, might be the simplest and most effective way of making sure that these centres are as safe as they can possibly be.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, this amendment, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. It would require all providers of child contact centre services to be accredited by the National Association of Child Contact Centres to national standards set by the Secretary of State. In responding to this, I start by recognising, as all noble Lords have, the vital role played by the National Association of Child Contact Centres and the many dedicated child contact centres across England and Wales. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, made clear, their work is fundamental to the family justice system, providing supervised or supported contact in a safe, neutral environment, allowing children to maintain a meaningful relationship with a non-resident parent. The commitment of staff and volunteers to safeguarding and creating a child-focused space is invaluable. I express my sincere appreciation for the work that they and the NACCC undertake.

I understand the motivation behind this amendment, but the Government do not believe that it is necessary and are already responding to some of the points made in this debate and in the debate in Committee. The NACCC already accredits the majority of centres in England and Wales, with research showing that unaccredited centres are uncommon. In preparing for this, I asked the obvious question: how many unaccredited child contact centres are there? Interestingly, the Cordis Bright research that the noble Baroness referred to found that there was only a small number of unaccredited contact centres, but the report did not provide a figure or estimate for the number of unaccredited contact centres. When those working in accredited child contact centres who took part in the research were asked about unaccredited contact centres, they indicated that such centres were few in number. This may well suggest that we have made progress, due to the efforts of the NACCC, in ensuring that many more child contact centres are accredited by it.

Following the meeting that noble Lords had with my noble friend Lady Levitt, which has been mentioned by several noble Lords, a range of work has been commissioned and is being taken forward by officials at the Ministry of Justice. One of those pieces of work is for officials to work with the NACCC to further understand how we can identify the number of unaccredited contact centres in England and Wales.

Also following from that meeting, other streams of work are taking place that will, I hope, provide reassurance to noble Lords on some of the specific issues that they have raised. These include, first, exploring the possibility of introducing a protocol or similar mechanism for mediators to ensure that they refer families only to accredited centres. Secondly, several noble Lords raised an important point about ensuring that those in child contact centres are suitably trained. Another piece of work is carrying out a further review of the mandatory training already in place for child contact centre staff and volunteers in order to ensure that it is as good as it can be. As I have already said, we are developing a more robust understanding of where any unaccredited centres are and of any concerns that may exist in relation to them.

While I completely understand that the amendment is well intentioned, I do not believe that mandatory accreditation is the best way to approach the issues that have been raised. The NACCC already provides effective leadership and oversight to the majority of centres. Further to this, the work the Ministry of Justice is now taking forward will provide additional reassurance in this space. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment, given the good work that is already being undertaken in relation to the points that noble Lords have raised.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

Before the Minister sits down, what action can be taken against a centre that appears to be quite dubious and unaccredited? While the amendment is not being accepted, there is recognition that there may be activities going on which are effectively underground. The children who may be having contact with a family member—usually a parent—in such a situation might be exposed to quite serious risk.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I do not believe that there is evidence to suggest that that is the case. All the research suggests that there is a very small number of unaccredited centres. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby made an important point about how it is possible to identify centres that are accredited. The vast majority of them are. Given that it is clear that the NACCC accreditation scheme covers the vast majority, I would have thought that that is the appropriate route. As I have said, we are going to ensure that there is a protocol for mediators that means they use only accredited routes. I would have thought that that would also have been the case for courts.

An unaccredited child contact centre might be used in limited circumstances for specific, short-term purposes because of the individual circumstances of the case—for example, in order to limit the travel that a child had to do in particular circumstances. Local authorities are under a legal duty to ensure that such provision meets all statutory safeguarding requirements and promotes the child’s welfare, so there is another level of assurance in the system. I will refer to my noble friend Lady Levitt the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby about the ability of courts to always be able to determine the nature of the contact centres where they are referring children. He raised a reasonable point, and I am sure all of us would want to ensure that it is covered.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Before my noble friend sits down, I just want to be clear about one aspect. She talked about mediators recommending only contact centres that are registered. Of course, very often in court, particularly in private cases, there are no mediators; there are people self-representing, very often men. They are the ones who propose contact centres, which may or may not be registered. The point I was making was that it is not that straightforward for a court to find out the nature of the contact centre that is being recommended.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

No, and this was the point I was accepting when I said I would ensure that our noble friend Lady Levitt is informed about it from this debate. As I have said, I am sure we will want to give more thought to how the labelling, almost, of the accreditation that does exist for the vast majority of contact centres can perhaps be made more obvious to courts in the sorts of circumstances that my noble friend identified.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the contributions to the debate on this amendment. It seems to me that the debate has exposed two possible problems. First, there is no sanction for the creation or use of an unregistered contact centre. Secondly, there is a gap in the knowledge of what is available, whether registered or unregistered. The Cordis Bright report was aware of that gap, and I suggest it is a worrying gap. It may well be, as Cordis Bright reported, that there is only limited evidence as to the prevalence of non-accredited centres, but it is still a small number, which could do quite a lot of damage.

That said, I think it is important to understand that the courts, when ordering contact, will always apply the protocols that are laid down by the president of the Family Division. I am also reassured by the Minister’s indication that mediators and indeed, possibly, others who have responsibility for guiding people towards contact centres, will be required to use only accredited centres.

We are not working from a blank page; there is already an excellent network of centres. On that basis, and because of the work that the Minister has been good enough to indicate is being undertaken, particularly by the Ministry of Justice, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will respond briefly, given the hour. Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, concerns implementing a government child neglect strategy, and I absolutely understand his aim in advocating for this. It is right to raise issues concerning the neglect of children, but in my own experience, neglect almost always coexists with other forms of abuse or harm. I fear that focusing on one element of a child’s experience might lead professionals to overlook others that are frequently interlinked. There are real risks with that approach, so we on these Benches do not support the amendment.

I genuinely look forward to the Minister’s reply to Amendment 97 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. We had powerful speeches in favour of what has happened in Wales, and, I would argue, equally important speeches from my noble friends Lord Jackson and Lady Meyer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. These reminded the House of the current law and raised important balancing points about some of the impacts of the Welsh legislation. I am sympathetic to the push by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for transparency and understanding the data as the Government navigate this very difficult area.

On a smacking ban, the only point that has not been raised this evening, and which worries me—I am sure that nobody would disagree with this—is that children also suffer terribly from psychological violence, emotional abuse or coercion from their parents. The point was made early in the debate about the importance of parenting programmes and positive support for parents. I hope that the Minister can talk about the Best Start in Life hubs, and say that the Government are finding routes, which we all want to see, to support parents without having to criminalise behaviour.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a good debate in this group on new clauses regarding a national child neglect strategy and the removal of the reasonable punishment review in Wales. I will also speak to three government amendments that will ensure that providers of regulated children’s social care settings or youth detention accommodation are held accountable for their role in the ill-treatment or wilful neglect of under-18s in their care. As we have heard in the debate, this group of amendments raises important issues around child safety and well-being—areas to which the Government are wholly committed.

Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a national child neglect strategy. Protecting children from all forms of abuse and neglect is a key priority for this Government. Neglect accounts for 50% of all child protection plans in England, and we know that it is often cumulative. Harm builds up over time if not addressed early. This is why, along with measures in this Bill and backed by over £2.4 billion of investment, our focus is on strengthening multi-agency family help and child protection through national reforms, and statutory guidance that explicitly references neglect as a safeguarding and child protection concern throughout. These practical steps will support practitioners to identify and respond effectively to children and families who need support, including where neglect is present.

We also know that poverty can increase the risk of neglect, although I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that being poor does not imply that you will neglect your children. It does, of course, make your life more difficult. That is why the recently published child poverty strategy prioritises early intervention and integrated support for families, addressing stressors such as parental mental health difficulties, parental substance misuse and domestic abuse—factors that often co-occur with neglect.

I acknowledge the strong case made on this topic by the Liberal Democrats, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, when we met to talk about it. The Government have heard a range of representations on this issue, and I can commit to the House that we will continue to work with key stakeholders—including the Government’s What Works Network, Foundations, and the national child safeguarding practice review panel—on specific matters relating to child neglect, helping to shape our understanding of this complex issue.

Youth Guarantee Scheme: Evaluation

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the Government’s youth guarantee will increase opportunities for 16 to 24 year- olds to make them work-ready and equipped to thrive. Success will be measured by improvements in employment outcomes, a reduction in economic inactivity, and an increase in participation in education and training. We will monitor these outcomes nationally for all youth guarantee participants. This will build on the already commissioned evaluation of eight youth guarantee trailblazers and a planned full process evaluation of the jobs guarantee.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sure she will agree that the youth guarantee scheme could be a vital reform to the welfare state, offering a lifeline to young people who are currently shut out from the rewards of work and learning. Can the Minister ensure that the youth guarantee scheme is focused and well managed and that updates are reported to Parliament? More importantly, I make a plea to her that the Government communicate this scheme positively, and do so directly to young people and their communities.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that, while all unemployment is devastating for the individual, for young people to not be able to access the workplace, or education and training, is a waste of their talents at the most important part of their adult lives. That is why we are absolutely committed to ensuring successful delivery of the youth guarantee and the jobs guarantee. It is a top priority for the Government. The department will provide updates on the development and delivery of the youth guarantee. My noble friend is right about the need to raise awareness. That is why we will partner with national and local organisations, and employers, to increase awareness of the youth guarantee so that young people and their communities understand the support and opportunities available.

[Lord Harrington of Watford (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of Make UK, which has 26,000 manufacturing companies that belong to it and is a major apprenticeship provider. As the Minister is very aware, because we have spoken to her on the subject, currently, apprenticeships in manufacturing are declining across the UK because of the big gap between the money that the apprenticeship levy provides and the actual cost of it, as well as rising employment costs. Given that the industrial strategy is committed to reversing this trend and increasing the funding bands, when will the Government follow through on their commitment, which is really needed for the youth guarantee scheme to be a success?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that I have been able to speak to Make UK about the important role of apprenticeships in delivering engineering skills for young and older people. I understand the concerns raised about the funding rates for engineering apprenticeships. That is why, as I said when I met Make UK, we will continue to monitor that in order to ensure that they meet the costs of training. We will continue to find other ways to encourage people on to apprenticeships, such as removing some of the bureaucracy associated with them, supporting the reform of end-point assessment, and removing the requirement for separate maths and English qualifications for adults.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, although we welcome the youth employment scheme, can the Minister say whether the Government will monitor the employment of 26 and 27 year-olds? If you are a small business and you can get someone at 24 for nothing, will that reduce your employment of 26 to 27 year-olds? We do not want to displace the unemployment from the 24 year-olds to the 26 year-olds.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Of course we do not want to displace the unemployment, but, as I suggested in responding to my noble friend, there is something particularly challenging and important about young people who do not even get the opportunity to get into the workforce and to have the chance of a successful future. That is why, although there will always need to be an age cut-off for a scheme, the youth guarantee, with its additional investment from the Budget and its focus on support from school onwards, will be effective in getting young people into the workplace, and keeping them there when they get to the age of 25 or 26 as well.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, the policies of the Government in relation to the Employment Rights Act and the implications of the tax increases are directly undermining opportunities for young people. In all seriousness, will the Minister urge colleagues in the Treasury and the Department for Business and Trade to reconsider these choices? If the Minister is going to go to the Treasury, I have no doubt that there are people in this Chamber who would be very happy to go with her to try to make the case.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, even when partly incapacitated, is always forthright in her questions—I wish her good luck with her recovery.

If it were the activities of this Government that were responsible for youth unemployment and the numbers of young people not earning and learning, we would not have inherited the frankly disgraceful levels of young people not earning and learning at the point at which we came into government. The difference is that, in our case, we have been to the Treasury; we have got from the Chancellor an investment of £1.5 billion into the youth guarantee, to help young people back into work, and to ensure that we can provide 50,000 more apprenticeships for young people. That is the effective way to ensure that young people get the opportunity to start their working lives in the way that we would all want them to.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, as a teacher, I am quite interested in how the Government will quality control jobs. Back in the day, when we used to do employment fortnight, those children who did not have direct access to parents or friends who had good places they could do jobs at ended up working in charity shops, which was all quite meaningless.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I suspect that all those people working in charity shops do not think their work is meaningless. I think the noble Lord is making a point about how we ensure that, when we provide, for example, the two weeks’ work experience that the Government are committed to providing for all young people, we do so in a way that gives them high-quality opportunities. I can assure him that schools focus on that, as he will know, as do mayoral combined authorities. We will ensure that, as we deliver that commitment, we are working with all of them to make sure that these are high-quality opportunities for young people.

[Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, as my noble friend the Minister has agreed, this vital new guarantee requires the enthusiastic commitment of employers, and I would say that is particularly important in key growth sectors where we are expecting employment to grow. Can she outline what plans are in place to secure that involvement, including in those sectors with high levels of SMEs and microenterprises—for example, the creative industries?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We need employers to recognise the benefits that providing opportunities for young people can bring, whether through placements or taking young people on as apprentices, or through giving them opportunities through the jobs guarantee. That is why we are working closely with employers and the representatives of employers. It is why, for example, with respect to the jobs guarantee, we will provide full funding for employers to take young people on at the national minimum wage for 25 hours a week. It is why, when it comes to apprenticeships, we already provide a national insurance contribution break for young people and, in the case of foundation apprenticeships, £2,000 for the employer to take on those young people.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, as I am sure the Minister is aware, most young people are looking for permanent employment. What proportion of young people will be moving on into permanent employment? Will the Government be tracking the quality of that employment—namely, salary and progression?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It will certainly be the case that in the evaluation we will want to track how many young people are able to move into permanent employment. I agree with the noble Lord about that. Evaluations of job support schemes in the past have suggested that there is a positive movement into long-term employment from these types of schemes.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I am all for opportunities for young people, but I challenge the Minister on why, particularly, young people on universal credit have to wait 18 months before accessing support. Why can we not move this forward, like we do for younger people who are in danger of being NEET, to six months?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

They will not have to wait 18 months. The backstop at 18 months is a guaranteed job of six months. Before they get to that point, they will have received support much earlier on from specialist work coaches, access to the additional 300,000 opportunities through either a swap or work experience to try work, and the support of other organisations to help tackle the issues that may be keeping them out of the workplace in the first place.

Sexual Harassment in Educational Settings

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the level of sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour experienced by women and girls in educational settings.

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

My Lords, sexual abuse in any form is abhorrent, and tackling it is a top priority for this Government. The Department for Education and the Office for Students assess levels of sexual harassment, violence and inappropriate behaviour through surveys of pupils, students and staff. Results, combined with national surveys such as the Crime Survey for England and Wales, suggest that young women are particularly at risk, which is why the Government’s VAWG strategy focuses particularly on young people.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her response and welcome the action that she has set out. As she said, the Office for Students survey revealed that one in four students who responded, mainly young women, reported experiencing sexual harassment, including rape, attempted rape and unwanted touching, and we know that many more incidents go unreported. Is the Minister confident that, with the measures that she set out, all colleges and universities will consistently tackle sexual harassment—for example, by creating safe and anonymous reporting systems—and, importantly, tackle the culture of harassment itself by ensuring that there is a whole-institution policy approach, with clear leadership and resources for victims? How will there be accountability to ensure that these measures are upheld?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness identifies the shocking level of sexual abuse in higher education, which is why it is important that the Office for Students introduced new conditions last August and put in place guidance to support higher education providers precisely to implement robust measures to prevent and address sexual misconduct, including, as the noble Baroness says, clear reporting procedures, staff and student training, transparent investigations, and a ban on non-disclosure agreements in harassment cases. Those steps are aimed at creating safer campus environments and improving institutional accountability.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, is the Expect Respect educational toolkit being used in all schools throughout the country, and higher education places, are people who use it being properly trained in how to use it, and is there any feedback on whether it is a success and how it is doing and whether pupils and students find it the right way to help them deal with this problem?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I have to say I am not sure about the specific toolkit that the noble Baroness references, but last year we produced new guidance in respect of relationships, sex and health education, and we will be supporting that with additional training and support for teachers.

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

My Lords, in 2017 the National Education Union published, with UK Feminista, a report on girls’ experiences of sexual harassment in schools, called “It’s Just Everywhere”. The report found that over a third of girls experienced sexual harassment at school, a quarter experienced unwanted physical touching of a sexual nature, and over a quarter of secondary teachers did not feel confident in tackling a sexist incident. Does the Minister therefore agree that the Government need to emphasise secondary teacher training to spot and tackle misogyny and that high-risk pupils should be sent on behavioural courses? These measures are absolutely necessary.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I agree with my noble friend. There are unacceptable levels of sexual harassment and abuse of girls within our schools and universities. That is why, as part of the violence against women and girls strategy published in December 2025, specific resources are made available in our schools—in particular, three pilot programmes to support RSHE teaching, to encourage healthy relationships and to tackle harmful sexual behaviour—as well as an innovation fund to enable us to work out the most effective methods of tackling this abhorrent activity.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, what impact does the Minister think that access to social media for children under 16 has on these behaviours in school?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am very aware that there was misogyny, sexual abuse and harassment long before there was social media. However, of course, some of the vile attitudes towards women and girls disseminated online are precisely why we need strong relationships, sex and health education and why we need to ensure that the Online Safety Act, which has some of the strongest controls over social media anywhere in the world, is fully actioned and that action is taken where there is inappropriate behaviour, including by the companies responsible.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, following on from that question, I am very grateful for the action being taken by Ofcom to investigate X and the Grok AI chatbot, but what are the Government doing to create a robust framework so that AI will be used responsibly in this whole landscape of sexual harassment experienced by women and girls?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate identifies some of the concern that has been expressed in recent days—including by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology—about the use of Grok. As she identifies, the issue goes much wider than that, which is why we need support for schools to ensure appropriate filtering, monitoring and use of AI and why we need to take strong action against companies using AI for some of the reasons that have been identified recently with respect to Grok. Some of that action is being taken in legislation already going through this House.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, it is a follow-up question to the previous one. As I understand it from Ofcom, the maximum fine that X will receive for having Grok on its website is £18 million. This is a pathetic fine for a company of this size. Do we not have any more robust tools to stop this type of behaviour?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As I say, the Technology Secretary has already made it clear that X needs to deal urgently with the issue of Grok. Ofcom has already contacted X and xAI to understand what steps they have taken to comply with their legal duties to protect users in the UK. If services fail to adhere, Ofcom can impose fines of up to 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue and, in the most serious cases of non-compliance, could apply to the courts to block services.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

Can I just quiz the Minister about research by Girlguiding last year? Its Girls’ Attitude Survey 2025 found that one in 10 young girls aged between 11 and 16 was missing education, deeply affecting their life chances going forward. I take the point that sexism and harassment existed before social media, but there is now clear evidence that social media is playing a huge role. I ask the question that other noble Lords have asked: will the Government now reconsider their position, particularly on mobile phones in schools but also on social media access for under-16s?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I think I have responded to that point. I have pointed out that one of the most appropriate things that schools can do—recognising that misogyny and abuse are not innate to children but are learned, including through the internet—is to help teach children different attitudes and to reinforce the decency that I think we all know most children and young boys have. To support schools to do that, we are investing through the provision that I talked about earlier, providing new guidance through the relationships, sex and health education guidance and supporting our teachers and parents to be able to do that.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her cross-cutting brief and the personal commitment she has to this issue. I understand the rightful concerns of noble Lords around the House that social media and big tech have played a negative role in all this. None the less, what can the Government do in their own media rounds—that is, every single Minister when in front of a microphone—and what can the Opposition do, given that they are led by a woman, to integrate this anti-misogynistic message in everything we do?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that the type of misogyny we are seeing, particularly impacting young people, needs a wide policy response. But it also needs cultural and political leadership, and it needs everybody to work together to condemn it and ensure that the positive behaviour which most young men and boys show is reinforced and that, where there are misogynistic attitudes in schools, we support teachers and parents to tackle them.

Schools and Universities: Language Learning

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, as the heavyweight bookend closing this debate, let me say what a good debate it has been. I thank my fellow bookend, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for having introduced it in the first place. There was a clear consensus during the debate that having the opportunity to study a modern foreign language should be part of a broad and rich education that every child in this country deserves.

Languages provide an insight into other cultures, and indeed they provide an insight into our own language, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, also made clear. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, that I benefited from a couple of terms of Latin at Dyson Perrins, the school that we shared, as well as A-level French and O-level German and Italian. That has not stopped me, however, still wanting to be part of this year’s Duolingo challenge, and I will take on anybody who also wants to be part of it.

As many have argued, languages also open the door to better employment opportunities; they are an important cultural asset, as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said; they are of economic and security value, and they are therefore a vital part of the curriculum. We are working to ensure that all pupils have access to a high-quality language education.

Of course—and this has been a key feature of this debate—we cannot do that without high-quality teachers in our classrooms. Recruiting and retaining expert teachers is critical to this Government’s mission to break down the barriers to opportunity for every child, as high-quality teaching is the in-school factor that has the biggest positive impact on a child’s outcomes. This is why the Government’s plan for change is committed to recruiting an additional 6,500 new expert teachers across secondary schools, special schools and colleges over this Parliament. Delivery is already under way, with a 4% pay award agreed for 2025-26, building on the 5.5% pay award for 2024-25, meaning that teachers and leaders will see an increase in their pay of almost 10% over two years under this Government.

We are already seeing positive signs that this investment is delivering, with the workforce growing by 2,346 full-time equivalents between 2023-24 and 2024-25 in secondary and special schools. That is where they are needed most, particularly for the sorts of subjects we are talking about today, and it is good that there is more positive news. We have seen a year-on-year increase in the number of trainees for postgraduate initial teacher training for modern foreign languages, up by 185 to 1,364 in 2025-26 from 1,179 in 2024-25. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, that that is a real number. This is supported by real government commitment, with continued bursaries, and therefore with a 14% increase in the number of trainee teachers starting their initial teacher training this year.

This recruitment year, we are offering language trainees bursaries worth £20,000 tax free or a scholarship worth £22,000 tax free to teach French, German or Spanish. Of course, to ensure continued recruitment of expert modern foreign language teachers, trainees can also access a tuition fee loan, maintenance loan and additional support depending on their circumstances, such as a childcare grant.

There has been a focus in this debate on international recruitment. While our teacher recruitment strategy is focused primarily on domestic recruitment, with over 70% of modern foreign language teachers being UK nationals, we recognise the valuable part that high-quality international teachers can play in contributing to our schools, especially in MFL. That is why highly qualified teachers who have trained in overseas countries can apply directly for qualified teacher status via the apply for QTS in England service, which has robust eligibility requirements to ensure that overseas teachers awarded QTS have the necessary skills and experience to teach in schools in England.

There has been focus on the immigration system during this debate and perhaps I could provide some reassurance for noble Lords. It is, of course, easier for an international teacher to be employed on a skilled worker visa than it is for other workers, by virtue of the fact that they do not have to meet the minimum visa salary thresholds as long as they are paid in line with the national teacher pay scales. This means that a qualified teacher outside London earning £31,650 qualifies for a skilled worker visa, whereas for most other occupations they would need to earn at least £41,700. I know that noble Lords have raised the point about whether it is difficult for schools to sponsor international teachers as workers. We recognise the challenge and that is why we are continuing to work closely to support the sector, providing dedicated guidance for schools which would like to employ international teachers and looking at how we can best support schools to navigate the visa sponsorship processes to ensure that international teachers can train and work in England. This is of course something where multi-academy trusts and local authorities can also provide support to schools that want to act as sponsors for those visas.

Therefore, while I understand the concerns that noble Lords have expressed about the forthcoming reduction in the graduate visa length, it remains an internationally very competitive visa and provides 18 months of opportunity for schools to determine whether an international student who has become a teacher is one whom they would then want to go on and sponsor. We also continue to offer bursaries and scholarships to non-UK national trainees in modern foreign languages to attract the best of those trainees and to ensure that they receive the appropriate training in this country.

On the international relocation payment, this was a two-year programme which the Government announced in June would not continue beyond its pilot stage. That is because, in looking at the evaluation, the research suggested that while the IRP supported some teachers to come to England to teach, the majority said that they would have come without the incentive and that the bursary and scholarship offer—which I have already outlined and which applies to international teachers—was a greater incentive to trainees.

On the point about the visa waiver, there have been no visa waivers for any profession since 2015. It is not our intention to develop a visa waiver here, but as I have identified, there are a whole range of other ways in which we are encouraging, where necessary, international students both to come to the UK and to stay to become teachers.

Several noble Lords have noted the important decision taken by this Government to rejoin from 2027 Erasmus+, the EU’s flagship programme for education, training, youth and support. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, rightly identified the asymmetry in the previous membership of Erasmus, which is why I am sure he is impressed that the Government have secured fair terms, including a 30% discount and a 10-month review to ensure value for money, maintaining a fair balance between the UK’s contribution and the number of participants benefiting from the programme. I believe that the benefits of this association, which extends beyond higher education to vocational training, adult education, schools and youth support organisations, will unlock world-class opportunities for learners, educators and communities and enable them to experience new cultures and learning environments and to learn languages, to recognise the significance of learning those languages and to gain new skills.

The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, is right that, in order to get the most out of this, we need to ensure that we encourage participation. That is a challenge we will take very seriously. We are already working to determine the national agency. As the noble Lord said, we are talking to the British Council about taking on that role.

We know, however, that the best recruitment strategy for teachers is a strong retention strategy. Since this Government came to power, we have sought to repair the relationship with the education workforce. We are working alongside them to re-establish teaching as an attractive expert profession, in which teachers are once more valued for the important work they do.

Languages are a vital part of the curriculum. We want to ensure that all pupils have access to a high-quality language education, starting at primary where languages are a compulsory part of the national curriculum at key stages 2 and 3. We are committed to enhancing early language education through to secondary to build that strong foundation for language skills and to increase the languages pipeline.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, referenced the Curriculum and Assessment Review. It recommended that we update the key stage 2 languages programme of study to include clearly defined minimum core content for French, German and Spanish to standardise expectations about what substantial progress in one language looks like. There is an issue about how you ensure the continuity of learning from the last two years of primary education through the transition into secondary. Sometimes pupils have to move to a different language, or the secondary school does not recognise the learning that has happened in primary schools.

Strengthening the national curriculum—taking up some of the good ideas talked about by the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, in terms of work between primary and secondary schools—could make an important difference. It is an area in which we can support further work. I know that all noble Lords—there has been mention of it already—are intrigued by the French weekends of the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, and would be very willing to accept invitations.

We are going much further than the review’s recommendations to tackle a range of issues that impact the languages pipeline. For example, we are exploring the feasibility of developing a flexible new qualification. This would mean that all pupils can have their achievements acknowledged when they are ready rather than at fixed points, enabling a recognition of progress and development in languages. This could also be extended to languages beyond those mainstream modern foreign languages.

We will continue to fund the National Consortium for Languages Education to ensure that all language teachers, regardless of location, have access to high-quality professional development and the skills they need to deliver the curriculum, and are able to develop the sort of networks that noble Lords have talked about.

We are working with the sector to learn from successful approaches to supporting the languages pipeline, including at A-level and degree level, and ways in which we can, for example, support A-level teaching through innovative partnerships with higher education and from approaches such as the one in Hackney, which is improving primary provision and transition.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, raised the issue of education technology; we are also exploring how AI and edtech can support stronger outcomes in language education, including exploring how those tools can help to deliver consistent curriculum content and support more coherent language provision across key stages as well as reduce teacher workload.

I understand that one of the objectives the last Government hoped for in introducing the EBacc was to increase study of those subjects, but actually of course the review found that uptake of EBacc subjects has not translated into increased study of them at 16 to 19. EBacc measures have, of course, unnecessarily constrained subject choice, affecting students’ engagement and achievement. That is why we will consult on an improved Progress 8, which balances a strong academic core with breadth and student choice, while no longer pursuing the EBacc accountability measure.

Languages are a vital part of the curriculum, and we want to ensure that all pupils have access to high-quality language education. That is why, starting at primary, we are committed to enhancing early language education, through to secondary, and to building a strong foundation for language skills to ensure a continuation on to A-levels and therefore to provide an appropriate pipeline into higher education. I recognise the concern that many noble Lords have expressed about the reduction in the number of students going into higher education to study modern foreign languages and the threats to some of those modern foreign language courses.

Although higher education providers are autonomous and independent institutions and will be ultimately responsible for the decisions they make regarding which courses they choose to deliver, I am sure their decisions could not have been made easier by the freezing of tuition fees and the failure by the previous Government to recognise the financial challenge that higher education was facing. That is why, although we are not proposing to change the categorisation of modern foreign languages in the strategic priorities grant, we have, through a commitment to index-linking tuition fee increases, provided much more financial stability to higher education and the ability to plan strategically and avoid the sorts of cold spots, including in modern foreign languages, that noble Lords have identified.

I recognise the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, about the significance of universities, particularly, in the case of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, the Open University. I share her admiration and credit her for her role in the contribution that the OU makes to language learning. Although the lifelong learning entitlement does not, in its first set of modules, include modern foreign languages, there is clearly an opportunity to ensure funding for modern foreign language learning throughout lifetimes in future iterations of the extent of the lifelong learning entitlement.

In conclusion, I thank noble Lords for this excellent debate. We recognise the importance and value of languages. We will continue to ensure that language education in England is accessible for all. We have used the Curriculum and Assessment Review to strengthen languages education as part of broader curriculum reform. We recognise that this can be delivered only by expert teachers, and ensuring that there are sufficient high-quality teachers in the classroom is a cornerstone of this Government’s plan for change. That is why we are pleased about the good progress we are making in recruiting more teachers and keeping more teachers in the classroom, as well as the increased number of modern foreign language trainees who have begun training this year. We will continue to ensure that we recruit and retain the best modern foreign language teachers for the remainder of this Parliament, through our financial incentives and through improving teacher workload and well-being so that we can achieve all the benefits of learning modern foreign languages, both at school and throughout lives, that noble Lords have identified in this debate.

Preschool Children: Digital Technology

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what information they provide to parents and early-years providers about safe and appropriate use of digital technology by pre-school children.

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

My Lords, the Government recognise concerns about the impacts of screen time on young children. We have produced guidance for the Help for Early Years Providers platform, which refers to the World Health Organization’s screen time recommendations. On screen time specifically, we are continuing to assess evidence gaps through ongoing research and will consider what, if any, further research and action is needed.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking time to meet me and the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, last month to discuss this issue. The evidence shows that digital device use among early years children is growing rapidly, and education and health professionals, researchers and academics are deeply concerned about how this is leading to identifiable changes in behaviour, language development, social skills and mental and physical health. More than 40 members of the Digital Standards for Early Years Action Group wrote to the Government more than a year ago to call for action in this area, but there is nothing in the early years strategy, there is nothing in the early years foundation stage statutory framework and there is no public health information for family hubs, health visitors or GPs, so the digital action group wrote again to the Government last week to call for real action in this area. Will the Minister outline what further steps the Government are going to take to address this important issue?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for our useful and informative meeting, from which we have already taken further action. She is right about, and we particularly discussed in that meeting, the concerns of parents for the advice that they receive. I outlined in my initial Answer some of the action that we are taking to provide more clarity for early years providers, but we are also working to provide parents with clear, specific advice on early years screen time and home learning. In advance of specific early years screen time guidance for parents, we have streamlined content on the Best Start in Life website, an issue that she raised with us, to ensure that relevant home learning content appears in search results for screen time. We are exploring options to prioritise search results, ensuring that the most relevant home learning page appears first to further strengthen discoverability. Any new specific guidance for parents on early years and screen time will also be signposted clearly on the website. I look forward to the opportunity, when the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill returns to this House for Report in January, to continue this conversation and provide further information about action that the Government are taking.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, this is an important question and the Minister’s replies have been very helpful. With regard to the safeguarding side of nurseries, the Minister will be aware of the tragic occurrences of two nursery children in my colleagues’ constituencies of Cheadle and Twickenham. I know she has engaged with those two MPs. What progress is being made to support children, particularly in those nurseries that are part of a group of nurseries?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises an important point, and of course we have had other very distressing cases that have taken place recently in nurseries. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State made a Statement about action that the Government are taking. Specifically on this issue, we will be appointing an expert panel to inform the development of guidance for the early years sector on CCTV and digital devices within safeguarding. That guidance will set out best practice, technical information and clear expectations about how those devices are used, along with the use of CCTV. I would be happy to send the noble Lord further information about the action that we have taken post that particular case.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is an adjacent problem to the one that we are discussing, which the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, has raised, which is parents’ own use of technology and the way that that impacts on their interaction with very young children? Most of us, if we travel on public transport, will often see a child in a pushchair and a parent or carer using their phone and the child being completely isolated from any contact. In the support for parents, will there be advice for parents about how their own use of technology can impact on their ability to interact effectively with their very young children?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important point. I note, for example, the Children’s Commissioner’s suggestions and advice this morning that Christmas would be a good time for us as adults to put down our phones and focus on family time and interaction with children in particular, while the NHS website provides advice on the activities that are important for children’s health and development. Sometimes the issue about screen time is that it displaces other important activities, so the NHS website provides advice on the importance of sleep at all ages for good physical and mental health and well-being—I am sure that noble Lords will be keen on that one—and guidelines for parents on physical activity for children under the age of five. Those types of activities and the face-to-face interaction that parents can have with their children are one of the most important ways in which we can ensure healthy child development.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as it is Christmas, parents are looking at all the available toys. One area that concerns me is the use of AI now in toys for very young children. Do the Government have any plans to look at that area, because it is of great concern?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

This is an issue that we touched on with respect to educational technology in particular during the course of the Bill. There are wider developments in how we can regulate the use of AI with respect to individuals’ data that are being taken forward, particularly by the Information Commissioner’s Office. The noble Baroness raises an important point that I am sure parents will have borne in mind when thinking about presents that they are buying for their children. However, she is also right that we cannot leave parents, schools or other settings to make these decisions on their own, which is why we need to keep up with the evidence in order to provide the best possible advice to parents, to education settings and to others.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the Minister’s comments about producing guidance for parents and early years settings in this area. Could she clarify the timing of that appearing and confirm whether it will be accompanied by a public health communications campaign?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I have probably gone as far as I can today in talking about the work that the Government are doing in thinking about how we can improve the guidance for parents. We will have more to say about this in the near future. As I said, we will also have the opportunity to consider this in more detail when we come back to Report on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. However, any guidance that we produce needs to be easily accessible to parents. That will mean, for example, using the Best Start in Life hubs and website. We will also require public health dissemination as well.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said today, but can she explain how any DfE guidance is co-ordinated with the work of Ofcom under the Online Safety Act, the ICO’s age-appropriate design code and DHSC advice, so that parents and providers receive a clear and consistent message rather than a patchwork of partial guidance?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very important point: in all this work, it is important that we are evidence led—as I suggested, we are developing that evidence through ongoing research—and, secondly, that we are able to provide clear information for parents and for early years settings, for example, with respect to the youngest children. There is considerable work going on between the DfE, DSIT and Ofcom to make sure both that the research is coherent and that the results of that research are appropriately communicated and go alongside some of the regulatory measures that the noble Lord mentioned.

Special Educational Needs: Investment

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether the £3 billion investment in additional places for children with special educational needs will involve the construction of new settings, or adaptations of existing educational establishments.

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

My Lords, the £3 billion in high needs capital announced last week is intended to support children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities and those who require alternative provision by creating facilities within mainstream schools that can deliver more flexible support adapted to suit people’s needs. It can also be used to adapt mainstream schools to be more accessible and create special school places for pupils with the most complex needs through expanding existing settings or stand-alone schools where this is necessary.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that reply. However, can the Government give us some idea of how this will work for those who have less complicated needs and probably are more frequent in number? What will this do to support those who might just get by with a little bit of help, as opposed to those with very complicated needs who will have less of their education in the mainstream classroom?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very important point. This funding is an opportunity to support those pupils to remain in schools close to home and enable them to learn and thrive alongside their friends, in environments that support their learning, by developing safe and quiet spaces and improving the accessibility of mainstream schools. That is a large part of what we expect this additional funding to support, precisely so that children can learn and thrive alongside their friends in mainstream schools and be identified earlier in order to do that.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I fully support the strategy to increase the number of SEND pupils in mainstream schools, subject to adequate funding to provide relevant support and teaching staff. However, there remains a small proportion of pupils with very special needs who will need further help that cannot be provided in such schools. Can the Minister explain how these young people’s needs will be met in future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right: there will be a small number of children for whom the excellent special schools that we already have—or, in some cases, additional spaces in special schools—will be the most appropriate way to support them. That is why the approach that we are taking with respect to the special school pipeline of free schools is to enable local authorities, which have responsibility for providing those places, to determine whether the funding is best used in mainstream schools or whether they need additional special schools to meet those exceptional circumstances that the noble Baroness talked about.

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, this announcement was part of a bigger announcement that cancelled many long-awaited new special schools. I would like to ask the Minister: what assessment has been made of parents’ views on whether their children’s needs are likely to be as well served in mainstream schools? What assessment has been made of the kinds of SEN provision and interventions that have real value to young people beyond just comfort and reassurance? What assessment has been made of the many types of SEN provision to determine what represents real value from a stretched public purse?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Actually, what happened in the special schools pipeline, as I said, was not the cancellation but a choice that was offered to local authorities over how to proceed with special and AP free schools. In making that decision, local authorities will want to ensure that the needs of parents are met. These are too often not being met in the SEND system up to this point, and that is precisely the reason why parents are so concerned since they have been struggling to get the provision that they need for their children under the previous system. In fact, 18 of the 77 projects in this pipeline were cancelled because no trust had been appointed for them and it would have taken, frankly, too long at a point at which we need more places with the specialist provision, either in mainstream or in special schools, for those pupils. We will be making quicker progress through supporting mainstream schools to provide those places so that there are more places more quickly for those children.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister knows that there is at least a problem, if not a crisis, in teacher recruitment and retention. Is she able to say anything positive about what the Government will do to seek more teachers who will be trained and qualified to ensure that they can work with children with special educational needs and disabilities in all settings in order to meet their needs appropriately?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is right, of course, that every teacher needs to be a teacher for children who have special needs. That is why, as part of this Government’s commitment to recruiting 6,500 new teachers, we have already seen over 2,300 new teachers for our secondary and special schools. It is why we are seeing a reduction in the turnover rate of those teachers; in other words, more are being retained in our classrooms. It is also why we are revising initial teacher training in order to provide more support and information for all teachers in how to respond to special educational needs in the classroom.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, has raised an incredibly important point. Special educational needs pupils need new buildings, but they also need new teachers. So why has there been a decrease in the number of primary school teachers since the Government came into power? Will the Minister commit to more teachers for early years special educational needs children to give them the best start in life?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As the noble Earl knows, or should know, primary numbers have been falling since 2019, which is why our additional investment—the 10% pay award for teachers, which applies across primary and secondary schools and which will bring in additional teachers—has, as I have already identified, increased the numbers of teachers in secondary and special schools, which is where they are particularly needed. It is already being effective, as is this Government’s commitment to keeping teachers in the classroom, not just attracting them in the first place.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, given that one of the big challenges for local authorities has been school transport for SEND children, what assessment has been done on how quickly these school places will be delivered? More importantly, has any work been done on the potential savings for local authorities, because this is one budget that is really challenging for local councils up and down the country?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The 50,000 additional places that will be funded through the £3 billion that we announced last week are on top of the 10,000 new specialist places in mainstream and special schools, supported by the £740 million that we invested this year. That goes back to the point I made earlier: this is not about saving money, but it is about saying that, for many children, they will be best served in local schools with specialist provision to care for them and help them to thrive alongside their friends. A side benefit of that is that we will no longer need to be transporting children long distances at great cost for education that they could more effectively receive closer to home.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, it is me again, and I am still a teacher. We can agree that the SEN system could do better. School action plus was a really good halfway house to an EHCP, where a lot of students could have their needs met without having to go through the EHCP. It was abolished 15 years ago, but there are rumours going around that the Government are considering bringing that back. Could the Minister comment on that?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am very pleased that the noble Lord is one of the over 2,000 teachers that we have been able to retain in the classroom, despite his busyness in this House as well—I am very glad that the pupils of Mossbourne get the benefit of his teaching. The Opposition’s previous Secretary of State for Education described the special educational needs system as a “lose, lose, lose” system, and I agree with her about that. That is why this Government are taking by the horns the requirement to reform the system. It is why my honourable friend Georgia Gould, the Minister, is at this very moment engaging in widespread conversation with parents, teachers and children about how we can reform the system so that it identifies children earlier and provides the support they need. Where necessary, it should provide that really specialist support for those with complex needs, and it should help parents and children feel more confident their needs are being met. We will have more to say about that in the White Paper that we will publish next year.

Free School Meals

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Boycott]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that schools’ core budgets in more deprived communities are not disproportionately used to meet the costs of providing free school meals.

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

My Lords, the Government already spend £1.5 billion annually supporting the provision of free and nutritious meals for around 3.4 million children. We have set aside a further £1 billion over the multi-year spending review period to fully fund our significant expansion of free meals to all households in receipt of universal credit from September 2026. This new entitlement will mean that more than 500,000 disadvantaged children will begin to access free meals.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Government very much for extending the remit of free school meals—that is excellent news. I declare my interest as chair of Feeding Britain. One of our trustees, Professor Greta Defeyter, does a lot of research into how the economics of free school meals work. She has found that the caterers are charging so much that schools are being forced to raid their teaching and learning budgets—literally the budgets they need to buy books—to pay for this. In Wales and Scotland, the budget for school meals is 60p to 70p more. What will the Government do to close this gap, given that the bill will get much higher next September, as she just alluded to?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As I have outlined, we are fully funding the expansion, with £1 billion additional funding over the next spending review period. We provide the funding for free school meals through the national funding formula, and it is within the ability of schools to be able to shift money around in order to fund this. I understand the noble Baroness’s point about the pressures that food inflation may be causing, but it is right to prioritise additional funding on broadening the entitlement rather than on funding caterers.

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is time that we brought back in-house catering to schools, so that children can benefit from knowing about food? Would it not be beneficial to also bring back home cooking to schools?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

There are many schools that, in thinking about the sourcing of their free school meals, see the benefits of having those responsible for buying and cooking the food in the school itself. It is up to schools to determine how they procure their free school meals, although I recognise that the last Government provided support for schools in procuring that as effectively as possible. There are already opportunities for children to learn cooking within school—and at home as well. That will always be an important thing for young people to be able to do.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is nice to see that the Opposition have now accepted that privatisation of school meals was not a good thing and that it has led to some of our problems?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I agree with my noble friend. This Government, in providing the additional commitment to children and the additional investment to expand free school meals, have recognised that, wherever it comes from, in-house provisions can often have a range of benefits for the school. More children will be able to benefit, with all the changes that that brings, such as the ability for them to concentrate on their learning and to have the food and nutrition that all children need to be able to succeed.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

I welcome the child poverty strategy, which commits to no child in school going hungry. However, I am deeply concerned to hear that many schools, particularly in deprived areas, are having to use teaching budgets to fill this gap. Can the Minister provide a list, not in the Chamber now but to me, of how many schools are topping up free school meal provisions from their teaching budgets?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As I have outlined, the national funding formula already includes provision for the funding of free school meals. It quite rightly targets funding to schools on the basis of those with the greatest numbers of pupils with additional needs. I will investigate whether it is possible to provide those figures. I am not sure that it will be, given how school meals are funded, but I will have a look.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

Can the Minister explain further why the allocation is less in England than in Wales and Scotland, particularly the allowance for adolescents aged 14 to 18? There is clear evidence that secondary schools are supporting meals out of teaching budgets. If the numbers who are entitled increases, which I welcome, that subsidy will have to increase.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It is the nature of devolution that different Governments make different decisions on how they fund and how they distribute that funding. Since this Government came into power, we have seen a considerable increase in the core schools budget, which increased by £3.7 billion in 2025-26. That benefits the teaching and learning that noble Lords are concerned about, as well as general health and the provision of free school meals, as this specific Question is about.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, in addition to worrying about how to fund free school meals, the Minister will be aware that there are concerns emerging about the funding of future teacher pay awards following the Treasury’s statement that there would be no additional funding for public sector pay awards outside departmental budgets. Can she reassure schools that the 6.5% recommended increase over three years which the department made to the STRB can be met through their budgets?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We have been clear with schools about the 10% increase in teacher pay that we have delivered since we came into government. Additional funding has been provided but, of that, we will support schools to find approximately 1% through efficiencies. I am sure that the noble Baroness supports the focus on efficiencies, even if she does not support the additional investment that this Government have been able to find.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I very much support the Government on the free school meals issue—it is incredibly important. We are facing an obesity crisis, so the better children eat, the better it is from the start. Can the Department for Education give some advice to schools about moving from caterers to in-house catering if they need it?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As I suggested earlier, the Department for Education is already providing advice to schools on how to procure their provision of school meals, and how to do it effectively and efficiently. We have to give schools the ability to make their own decisions about how they provide the free school meals that they are responsible for providing. Alongside that advice, that is the current position.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a teacher at a state secondary school with over 50% pupil premium. I assure noble Lords that the food I taught my year 8 students about was nutritious and was taught to a budget. Students are taught food in year 7 and year 8—it is part of the national curriculum —so they are very well-taught at that stage. I welcome the free school meals news, but I have heard a lot that breakfast clubs are very much a top-down, one-size-fits-all, cookie cutter approach, whereas heads are saying, “Could you just give us the money and we’ll sort out how it’s done?”

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Lord provided excellent food education for the pupils he was responsible for. The rollout of breakfast clubs started originally with the 750 early adopters. That was precisely about being able to identify, in a range of different schools, how we best delivered and funded breakfast clubs. While I understand the noble Lord’s call for more flexibility, and we would certainly want to maximise that where possible, we are clear that there are standards around breakfast clubs for the quality of the food provided and the period of time that club operates for. This is about food, but it is also about childcare and a good start to the school day, which have to be set centrally. Within that, I am sure as much flexibility as possible will be offered.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned procurement advice that the Government are giving with respect to free school meals. Can she update the House as to what advice they are giving to ensure that the produce consumed is locally sourced, sustainably grown and provided by identifiable local farms that the schoolchildren can interact with for their own learning benefit?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Earl will realise that that would not necessarily be possible in every school. I refer him to the good food cycle, the food strategy produced by my colleagues in Defra, which sets out the Government’s vision to drive better outcomes from the UK food system and particularly supports children in ensuring that there is more affordable food, good growth, a sustainable and resilient supply, and a vibrant food culture. As we have already discussed, although it is not always possible, where children’s cooking skills or school meals can be linked to local food providers as part of their education, that can only be beneficial.

Young People not in Work, Education or Training

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the Government are investing £820 million over the spending review to help young people earn or learn through the youth guarantee. This includes a job guarantee, in which every eligible 18 to 21 year-old who has been on universal credit and looking for work for 18 months will be guaranteed six months’ paid work. In addition, we have announced £725 million for the growth and skills levy to support apprenticeships for young people, alongside reforms to simplify the apprenticeship system and make it more efficient.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome what my noble friend the Minister has just explained, but does she agree that nearly 1 million people not being in work, education or training—rising remorselessly under the last Government—is terrible for them and for taxpayers? The longer people are out of work, the more costly it is to prepare them for work. The media and right-wing clamour for short-term cuts in welfare is for the birds, frankly. Labour’s hugely successful 1997 new deal for young people programme helped more than its targeted 250,000 young people to move off welfare into employment, costing £668 million or up to £8,000 per person. However, national income grew by at least £200 million annually—so, short-term costs for long-term savings. Surely, that should be our policy today?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question and also for his history of tackling this issue in past Labour Governments. I fully agree with him that having nearly 1 million young people not in work, education or training is not only bad for those young people but also very bad for the economy. That is why we have today announced further detail on the policy measures underpinning the youth guarantee, to which this Government have committed £820 million over the next three years. For young people on UC, we are introducing a new youth guarantee gateway session and follow-up support, which will be offered to nearly 900,000 16 to 24 year-olds in jobcentres over the next three years. We are expanding youth hubs to over 360 locations, creating around 300,000 opportunities for young people to gain workplace experience and training. We are also fully funding apprenticeship training costs for all eligible 16 to 24 year-olds, by removing the need for non-levy-paying employers to co-fund these learners; that is alongside the job placement for 18 to 21 year-olds that I have already talked about. That is the way we will turn around the scandal of nearly 1 million young people neither earning nor learning, with all the damage that creates for them and the economy.

[Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for visiting two university technical colleges, where she saw colleges which had a NEET unemployment rate of under 2%, compared to the rate of a mainstream school of 13.6%, which is disgraceful and unacceptable. As no new colleges or schools will be built in the next five years, the only way that those in school in communities that have an industrial heritage will be able to study a practical, technical education is to have a sleeve of UTCs from 14 to 18. The Minister knows that we produce 25% apprentices and 50% STEM graduates. That is our contribution to ensuring that, by the time of the next election, youth unemployment will not exceed what it is today.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I always enjoy my visits to UTCs and of course my conversations with the noble Lord as well. UTCs are doing a very good job in providing technical education which then leads on to apprenticeships, and so are other schools as well. At the heart of our post-16 White Paper was that we provide the pathways, through the new V-levels, T-levels and apprenticeships, for young people to get the skills they need to make a success of their lives.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will agree that, after the 1948 Education Act was introduced, there was an unspoken contract between the state and parents that the state would provide education for every child and that parents, on the other hand, had an obligation to get their child to school every day, unless there was good reason for it not to happen. The difficulty about the young people not in education, work or training today is that this behaviour starts very early in a child’s career. Does the Minister have any thoughts about how we can restore the contract between the state and parents to get their children to school?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point. It is absolutely the case that children who are absent for periods of time, or who are in alternative provision by virtue of behavioural needs, are more likely not to be in education, employment or training. That is why, as part of this plan, we will have a particular focus on those children, to identify much earlier who is likely not to be able to find a college place or job, and to intervene at that point to prevent them becoming NEET in the first place.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s comments, but this is very much a top-down approach to getting young people back into work. Can she give further assurance on how the Government will encourage tradespeople—the plumbers, electricians, brickies and others—to take on people as apprentices and trainees? This starts at the bottom. This does not start with all the courses that young people can do part-time; they have to be employed by a plumber, a builder or an electrician. What are the Government doing about it?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am sure that the noble Lord will therefore welcome the announcement that we also made today of fully funding small and medium-sized businesses to take on apprentices. These are the businesses that are more likely to take on young people, including disadvantaged young people, and they are being supported by this Government. That will help to turn around the 40% decline in young people starting apprenticeships over the past 10 years.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the most effective way to reduce the number of young people who are NEET is to secure stronger economic growth, giving employers the confidence, incentive and capacity to hire? Furthermore, under Labour’s proposed new youth guarantee, which is very welcome, how will the Government ensure that young people are matched to sectors for which they are genuinely suited, so that employers are not left exasperated by placements that break down almost immediately due to poor alignment?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am very glad to hear the noble Baroness’s recognition of the importance of the youth guarantee announcements that we have been making today. We also announced the first six areas in which we will work with intermediaries, and directly with employers, to find those placements. An important element of the job guarantee will be the additional support that we can place around young people, who, by virtue of having been unemployed for 18 months, will undoubtedly need that additional support, including identifying where their talents lie so that they can then be used to the max.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham]

My Lords, care-experienced young people are particularly at risk of being not in work, education or training. Has the Minister taken note of the support that universities, such as Nottingham Trent University, provide to care leavers in admissions, finance and transition, while also securing affordable, suitable and stable accommodation for them and estranged young people? What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the additional support that care leavers need to stay in education? Can the Government ensure that this kind of specific support is available more consistently across universities and for apprenticeships too?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I hope I can reassure the right reverend Prelate about that. First, care-experienced young people are a key part of the group for whom universities have responsibility through their access and participation plans, and the right reverend Prelate identified some good examples of where universities are doing that. In addition, those young people receive additional bursaries to go to university in the first place. If they undertake an apprenticeship, the employer receives additional money to support them with that. On their interactions with the benefit system, employment and education, the Department for Work and Pensions provides additional support to ensure that these young people get the chances later in life that they have not necessarily had earlier on.

SEND Budget Funding

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how the commitment to fund SEND budgets centrally as announced in the Budget will affect mainstream school budgets.

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

My Lords, the Government have been clear that SEND pressures will be absorbed within the overall Government DEL budget from 2028-29, such that the Government would not expect local authorities to need to fund future special educational needs costs from general funds. Budgets from 2028-29 onwards, including the core schools budget, will be confirmed at the 2027 spending review.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. On this side of the House, we genuinely wish the Government every success with their work on the reforms to the special educational needs system. As the noble Baroness knows, the expected annual deficit on the dedicated schools grant is over £6 billion in 2028-29, which is a huge number. While the Government have been very clear that this will come from current RDEL allocations, they have not specified a funding plan to cover this. Anyone who has been involved in SR negotiations will know that finding £6.3 billion, apparently from other government departments rather than the DfE, will be incredibly difficult, if not impossible.

Of course, this is not even about £6.3 billion in one year; in the OBR document, if you look at the three years beyond this SR period, you see that the figure for the projected deficit is well over £20 billion. So I hope the noble Baroness will understand why schools and parents are worried, and why more clarity is needed about who is going to pay for this. I hope she can give us that now.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I take the noble Baroness’s assurance that noble Lords opposite want to support the Government in reforming the SEND system; I believe that to be true. However, it is also the case that there has been a fair amount of misinformation being peddled, not least by some of her colleagues at the other end of Parliament, about the nature and source of the £6 billion, and the way in which it will be dealt with in 2028-29. As I made clear in the original Answer, in the Budget the Treasury was very clear, in careful wording, that future funding implications will be managed within the overall Government DEL envelope—not the DfE’s DEL—and will be part of the spending review that will start in 2027.

The other important point is that that figure assumes no reform of the SEND system, and of course that reform will be focused first and foremost on ensuring that children and their families get better outcomes than they are getting from the system at the moment, and it will be important to ensure that that happens. It will also make system more sustainable.

I hope that all those interested in SEND reform will, for example, take part in the quite extensive engagement activity that is currently under way to help to inform those reforms.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I applaud the intention behind the Government’s announcement, but does the Minister agree that there will be no real reform unless there is capacity within the school system to identify early? This will require training budgets and technology to back it up. If the Government can assure us that this is going to be there, they stand a chance of doing something here.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. To be clear, the objective here is to ensure better outcomes in a system that at the moment costs a considerable amount of money but is not delivering the outcomes that children and families need. The noble Lord identifies a couple of areas where the Government are already investing additional money, for example into teacher training from early years onwards; into the support available for continuing professional development for teachers; into initial teacher training and the early career framework; and into the national professional qualifications for teachers. All of those have had reform and investment from the Government to ensure, as the noble Lord accurately said, that we are in a better position to identify children’s needs at an earlier stage and to address them in our mainstream schools.

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Minister is absolutely correct to suggest that early-stage identification is critical. She will be aware that there have been decades of persistent underfunding and pressures on local authorities about SEND services. Hundreds of thousands of children are still awaiting their final assessment. Can the Minister assure the House, and parents who are waiting for these assessments, that the local authority can be asked to ring-fence the budget, so children receive the care they deserve?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am afraid the situation is even worse than my noble friend has identified. A considerable amount of money is being spent on special educational needs and disability provision, but parents remain concerned about being able to access the support they need, the outcomes for children are not good enough, and local government is facing considerable deficits because of that. That is why we need the type of reform that this Government have undertaken. A test of it will be whether parents feel more confident at an earlier stage that their children are getting the support they need to flourish.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, is more being done to ensure that teachers have the time they need to assess the needs of people with particular educational needs? It takes time: no person is the same and individuals need to be assessed according to their own individual problems.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord is absolutely right about that. That is why, for example, we are improving the ability for staff in early years settings to identify special educational needs. It is why we are also developing a national professional qualification for the special educational needs co-ordinators, who will play an important role in that assessment, and why we have invested in recruiting more educational psychologists, who play a really important role in assessment.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, when there is not enough support for SEND pupils in a classroom, it has a major impact on other pupils in the classroom and on teachers themselves, some of whom are leaving the profession because of the stresses they are under? Does the Minister agree that sometimes it is in other educational provision, such as forest school and play, that these children can really thrive?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

In actual fact, I think all children can really thrive in alternative provision. The important thing here is that we ensure that all of our teachers and schools are able to deliver the inclusive teaching and provision that will ensure that children can not only have their needs identified as early as possible but can then receive excellent teaching, which is what will make a difference. Also, I can reassure the right reverend Prelate that we have actually seen a record low in the number of teachers leaving the profession this year.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interest in having recently stood down as the leader of the London Borough of Bexley, but I am still a councillor. The OBR has red-flagged the £14 billion existing deficit that local authorities are in, at a cost that is currently unaccounted for in government plans. Some estimates suggest that, by the time SEND spending returns to council balance sheets in 2028, nine out of 10 upper-tier authorities could be forced to declare bankruptcy. How do the Government aim to clear that deficit and solve the problem?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I take the noble Baroness’s point, but perhaps, if it were that serious, more effort could have been made on reform before we got to this Government. Nevertheless, this Government will work with local authorities. By the way, it is not an OBR red flag; it is an OBR assessment of what the costs will be in 2028-29. The OBR has been very clear—including this week in the Treasury committee—that its suggestion about the impact on core schools budget is hypothetical. We will continue to support local authorities, including, for example, alongside an extension to the dedicated schools grant’s statutory override. We will set out further details on our plans to support local authorities with historic and accruing deficits, including conditions for accessing the support we are providing through the upcoming local government finance settlement.

Equality Act 2010: Supreme Court Judgment

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker]

To ask His Majesty’s Government which departments have been involved in considering the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s code of practice on implementing the Supreme Court judgment on the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010.

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

My Lords, the Services, Public Functions and Associations: Code of Practice provides guidance on all protected characteristics, not solely sex and gender reassignment. As the sponsoring body, the Office for Equality and Opportunity is responsible for providing advice to Ministers on the code. Other government departments have been consulted as required on specific elements of the code.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer; it was a fairly simple Question. But does my noble friend understand that the delay and constant difficulty in giving straight answers to questions about the guidance gives the strong impression that the Government are being held to ransom by a tightly knit group of politically motivated Peers and MPs who do not accept the Supreme Court judgment, as stated by the rule of law? One is entitled to ask: where has the rule of law gone?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

No, I do not recognise that because it is not true. Any suggestion that the Government are delaying the code is both totally inaccurate and unhelpful. This is a long and complex document, and we are carefully considering it. Frankly, it would be catastrophic for single-sex services, which have always been supported by this Government and this party, to implement guidance that was not legally sound, which would then place them in legal jeopardy again. That is why it is vital that we get this right. We have always been clear that the proper process needs to be followed, which includes understanding the potential impact on businesses, public functions and services. Understanding impacts is a routine and regular aspect of decision-making; it is not a delaying tactic.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

For the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister confirm that the law is as determined by the Supreme Court judgment? Any code of practice is guidance.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, I am very happy to confirm that, as has been the Prime Minister. To be clear, the Supreme Court ruling in relation to the For Women Scotland case is clear; both inside and outside government, we expect it to be followed and, where necessary, people to seek specialist legal advice to enable them to do that.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, on costs, what assessment has been made of the potential cost implications for employers and public bodies? How are the Government ensuring that the code does not inadvertently require expensive or disproportionate changes to facilities or service delivery?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I do not believe that it will, but understanding costs is of course a routine and regular aspect of decision-making, as I suggested. This is a long and legally complex document that will have an impact on service providers up and down the country. Rightfully, we are carefully considering it and have asked the EHRC not to carry out a full regulatory impact assessment but, rather, to help by providing information on costs to ensure that a full impact assessment is not required, so that Ministers can take a fully informed decision.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I declare for the final time an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I am sure that the House will be delighted to hear that this is my final intervention on this matter, but I want to explain for the information of the House the important point made by both the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the Minister. It is simply that the code was provided to government on 8 April, before the Supreme Court ruling. Since the Supreme Court ruling, only 10% of the code has changed. It is coming up to eight months since 90% of the code was reviewed by the Government, and they responded with suggestions to those different protected characteristics and aspects. It is only that 10% which has been with the Government since 4 September.

Finally, the Minister makes an important point about the costs of the regulatory impact. The bottom line is that since this is the law of the land, the impact of costs will be far higher if we litigate through the courts case by case, public body by public body, and duty bearer by duty bearer.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I wholly agree with the noble Baroness on her last point, which is precisely why it is important that we consider the code appropriately, as laid out in law in the Equality Act 2006. She is right that, as I outlined, the code covers more than the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment. But it was on 4 September that the updated code, post the For Women Scotland case, was submitted to the Government. For the reasons I have outlined, I do not think it unreasonable for the Government to take the time to consider this appropriately and to consider, as they are expected to do by the burdens process put in place by the previous Government, the potential impact of that on providers, and for us to work to do so in a way that will safeguard providers in protecting all the protected characteristics that the code—

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I have not finished yet. In concluding, I take the opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, for her work in leading the EHRC. I suspect that this will not be the last time she asks questions about this issue in this House, and nor should it be.

[Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)]

As the Whip for the Equality Act 2010, can my noble friend the Minister clarify the next steps in the statutory process and how the Government will ensure that, when the code returns to Parliament, it will be legally sound, proportionate and practical for those who will implement it?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend not only for that question but for her history of work in the area she outlined. As I suggested earlier, there is no benefit to anybody, particularly those who most need the clarity that application of the code can bring—for example, to lawfully provide single-sex spaces for women—to sidetrack the correct and careful process the Government are following. The Government are following the process for laying the code in Parliament set out in the Equality Act 2006. The Minister for Women and Equalities is considering the EHRC’s updated draft code, as I have already outlined, and if the decision is taken to approve it, she will lay it before both Houses over a 40-day period, as per the process set out in Section 14 of the Equality Act 2006.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, on 5 November the Minister was asked this by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick:

“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?”.—[Official Report, 5/11/25; col. 1926.]


She helpfully responded by saying, “I do agree”, so the Government have said they support the Supreme Court’s ruling, yet the EHRC’s updated guidance reflecting that ruling has sat with Ministers for almost three months. Can I push the Minister a little more to say when it will be published? Every week of delay fuels confusion over a legally settled issue and leaves service providers without the clarity they need. Will it be one month, three months, six months; or, even better, will it be very soon?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It will be at the point at which we have fulfilled the process that I have outlined to the House today. It will be at the point at which we can all be confident that what we provide in clarifying the application of the law will support providers in delivering for all those with protected characteristics, which is of course the role of the code. But the noble Baroness is right: I was clear in response to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about the clarity of the law and the requirement for all to be following it at this point. That is the position taken by the Prime Minister in the last week, and that is what everybody should be doing.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that the current unclarity arises not from the judgment of the Supreme Court but from the rushed and muddled unclarity of the code provided by the EHRC? Does she agree that we must now make sure that we do not inadvertently create an undefined third category, who could be difficult for providers to deal with?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The theme of my responses today to the questions asked is precisely to try to follow the legal and correct process here, and to avoid legal uncertainty for providers in the application of the law and the use of the code in doing that. It serves nobody—it serves none of the people whom those in this House and more broadly understandably feel passionate about—if this Government are rushed by political considerations into publishing a code which will not do the job it needs to do for the most vulnerable people. That is at the heart of the process we are following, and at the heart of our commitment to serving those people.