Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 38 in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 38J to 38P.
“Power to require internet service providers to prevent or restrict access by children to internet services
(1) The Online Safety Act 2023 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 214 insert—
“Power to require internet service providers to prevent or restrict access by children to internet services
214A Power to require internet service providers to prevent or restrict access by children to internet services
(1) The Secretary of State may, for the purpose of protecting relevant children from a risk of harm (including harm presented by content), make provision by regulations requiring providers of specified internet services—
(a) to prevent access by relevant children to specified internet services which they provide, or to specified features or functionalities of such services;
(b) to restrict access by relevant children to specified internet services which they provide, or to specified features or functionalities of such services.
(2) “Relevant child” means a child who is of, or under, a specified age (and different ages may be specified for the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1)).
(3) The provision that may be made by regulations under this section includes provision—
(a) about the steps that must or may be taken by a provider for the purposes of complying with a requirement imposed by the regulations;
(b) about the monitoring of compliance with a requirement imposed by the regulations;
(c) about the enforcement of a requirement imposed by the regulations.
(4) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (1)(b) includes, for example, provision requiring a provider of an internet service to—
(a) limit the amount of time per day, or over the course of a specified period, for which relevant children may access the service or a specified feature or functionality of the service;
(b) limit the times of day at which relevant children may access the service or a specified feature or functionality of the service;
(c) restrict access by relevant children to a service or to a feature or functionality of a service by virtue of which—
(i) a user of the service could receive unsolicited contact from a person who is not known to the user;
(ii) a user of the service could encounter live oral communications or live video generated directly on the service, or uploaded to or shared on the service, by a person who is not known to the user;
(iii) a person who is not known to a user of the service could encounter live oral communications or live video generated directly on the service, or uploaded to or shared on the service, by the user;
(iv) a person who is not known to a user of the service could identify the actual or approximate location of the user.
(5) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (3)(c) includes provision for a requirement to be an enforceable requirement for the purposes of Chapter 6 of Part 7.
(6) In making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to the fact that children of different ages may be affected by an internet service, or a feature or functionality of an internet service, in different ways.
(7) Regulations under this section may—
(a) make provision applying any provision of this Act (with or without modifications);
(b) make provision for exceptions to requirements imposed by the regulations;
(c) make provision about the time by which, or period within which, a thing must be done;
(d) make provision by reference to standards, arrangements, specifications or technical requirements as published from time to time;
(e) confer functions on a person, including functions involving the exercise of a discretion, and make provision in connection with the procedure for exercising the functions;
(f) make consequential provision.
(8) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (7)(f) may amend or repeal primary legislation.
(9) OFCOM must, so far as reasonably practicable—
(a) carry out such research or provide such advice as the Secretary of State may request for the purposes of making regulations under this section, and
(b) do so by such time, or within such period, as the Secretary of State may specify in the request.
(10) As soon as reasonably practicable after providing advice under subsection (9), OFCOM must publish the advice.
(11) In this section—
“primary legislation” means—
(a) an Act of Parliament,
(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,
(c) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru, or
(d) Northern Ireland legislation;
“specified” means specified, or of a description specified, in regulations under this section.”
(3) In section 225 (parliamentary procedure for regulations), in subsection (1), after paragraph (e) insert—
“(ea) regulations under section 214A(1),”.”
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I shall also speak to Motions A1, A2, D and D1. In this group, we will debate amendments on restricting social media for under-16s, digital literacy in the school curriculum and mobile phones.
I turn first to Motion A1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, which disagrees with Amendments 38J and 38P and proposes new Amendments 38Q and 38U. I will also speak to Motion A2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nash. Amendment 38Q would require social media services to set their own minimum age of access based on their children’s risk assessment under the Online Safety Act. Amendment 38R would amend UK GDPR, so that the digital age of consent is raised from 13 to 16 for some social networking services. Motion A2 seeks to amend government Amendments 38A to 38C, requiring the Secretary of State to restrict under-16s from accessing user-to-user services or to restrict specific features or functionalities when making these regulations.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley and Lord Nash, and other noble Lords for their sustained commitment on these vital issues. Let me be clear that it is a commitment that the Government share; protecting children online is as much a priority for this Government as it is for noble Lords. The question is not whether but how and what action will be taken and who is involved in making sure that that action is right. It is to facilitate this that the Government launched their consultation in March.
I am pleased to see that the noble Lord’s revised amendment considers the variety of measures on which we are seeking views through the consultation. It acknowledges that there are numerous approaches to securing the safety and well-being of our children: a blanket ban for under-16s to access social media; restricting specific “addictive” features or functionalities and risky features; and raising the digital age of consent under the UK GDPR. This is what our consultation is focused on. This shows that the noble Lord agrees with the Government that it is important that we take not only swift action but the correct action. Let me be clear that the government consultation, and the legislative means in the Government’s amendment, is the most responsible way to get this right, ensuring effective outcomes that will last.
The Government’s amendment allows for clear and decisive action. Amendment 38Q, while well intentioned, may give too much discretion to services in setting age restrictions without considering the evidence from the Government’s consultation. Amendment 38R would change the age of digital consent in the UK GDPR only for social networking services, whereas the Government’s consultation asks whether this change should also apply to other online services.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, on Motions A, A1 and A2, the Government, as I think I made clear in opening this debate, recognise the concerns raised in this House and the strength of feeling among parents about protecting children online. As I and other Ministers have said, we share that commitment. This is a complex issue, with a range of views, expressed once again today during this debate, about how it is best approached.
Points were made by noble Lords about enforcement, the development of the online safety regime, and other issues that my noble friend Lady Lloyd and others in DSIT will continue to think carefully about. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, slightly took us back to discussions that we had earlier on the issue of edtech. I am happy to provide him with further information, expanding on the information that I gave in Committee, about the approach that the Government are taking, particularly to develop the evidence around what is and is not appropriate use of technology in the classroom. Given the strength of feeling, we have been clear in government that it is important that we act not only quickly but in the right way.
The cases in the US, as commented on by noble Lords, have rightly and understandably raised interest. While we do not comment on foreign court judgments, we welcome international efforts to strengthen online safety and will want to learn from what is happening around the world. However, I note that the UK has the most robust online safety framework in the world, with a regulator empowered to issue fines of the same order of magnitude or larger. That is why the Government have announced that we are going to take further action to protect children’s well-being online through our consultation.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and others have identified, there is a range of action in different countries; I agree that it is not the same action in different countries. I was fortunate, before I was confined to my bed before recess, to go to New York, to the Commission on the Status of Women, where I attended a useful session with a focus on the action taken by different countries to protect children online. What I thought was notable was the wide range of different approaches being taken in different countries—different ages, different scope and different speeds at which it was happening. We cannot simply look abroad to find a consistent approach. That is why, while watching very closely what other countries are doing, we want to be confident that what we introduce here works and works for all children, including the most vulnerable. That is why testing options now, taking evidence from families themselves and putting in place the legislative powers to act quickly once the consultation closes is the right thing to do. It means that we can move in months, not years.
As has been said on numerous occasions, the Government’s consultation looks beyond a simple social media ban to a wider range of harms, from addictive design to time spent online, allowing for a more comprehensive and effective response with long-lasting outcomes. It considers at least some of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. In other developments, as I outlined in my opening speech, the Government are taking action through the curriculum, supporting schools to enable children and young people to be much clearer about media literacy and the nature of what they will encounter online at some point, whenever that may be in their lives, when they have access to it. This is clearly an important development, both in the curriculum and in the way in which our schools are teaching.
We have listened to concerns about pace, which was another important theme of the debate today. The argument is that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, would enable faster movement, because we would not need to consult. The Government have laid the groundwork to act swiftly on the outcome of our current consultation without the need for lengthy primary legislation. It is a short, sharp consultation, which we believe is the right thing to do to make sure that we take the right approach. I reiterate that we have been clear that it is not a question of if but how we act. In addition, the government amendment would allow any subsequent regulations to capture a wider range of harmful features and functionalities and to tailor measures to where harms are actually occurring. We are committed to working as quickly as possible to deliver additional protections. We will not wait years, as with the Online Safety Act. We are determined to get it right and we will not compromise on what is best for our children’s future.
There is concern about scope—I think I have responded to some of that concern—and scrutiny. That is why we have tabled legislative powers to act swiftly on the basis of evidence, alongside a clear commitment in the Bill to report to Parliament within six months. We have made it clear that these powers can be used only for the purposes of protecting children. I hear the concerns raised by the noble Lords, Lord Mohammed and Lord Clement-Jones, about Henry VIII powers. To be clear, the power permits the Secretary of State to apply only existing parts of the Online Safety Act, with modification if needed, to ensure that the new regulations are effectively incorporated into the legal framework. The power would not allow this Government, or any future Government, to amend the existing online safety duties. We have been clear that the powers must have due regard to the effects on children of different ages and we have provided, as I outlined in my opening comments, for meaningful scrutiny, through engagement with relevant Select Committees, before any regulations are laid. We have been clear throughout, as demonstrated through these new legislative powers, how we will do this both quickly and effectively.
Moving on to the issue of mobile phones, it is important to reiterate that there has already been progress in the ways in which schools deal with mobile phones. We know that the majority of schools have policies that prohibit mobile phones, which is why we believe that Amendment 106 is unnecessary. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, slightly understated the changes that we have made to the guidance and the range of other measures that we have put in place around the guidance to support head teachers and to enable it to be implemented more quickly.
On the specific issue of whether “not seen, not heard” as an approach is appropriate, she is right—we have now taken that out of the guidance, and we would be willing to consider whether we should be stronger on that. The question that the noble Baroness asked was whether the use of guidance would make this impossible. She knows that the point of guidance, whether statutory or non-statutory, is to provide clarity in the broadest context about how we expect schools to operate in this area. It is a complex area where different schools and different head teachers might have different ways of achieving the outcome—we are all clear that there should not be access to mobile phones for children at any point in the school day—but it is not possible for me to say that it would be impossible, as she knows.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, both the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, and I raised the issue of smartphones as distinct from mobile phones. I understood the Minister to say that she would consider improving the guidance to make it clear that “not seen, not heard” was not in line with the spirit of the guidance. Will she also undertake to look at whether there is any refinement that could be considered in relation to smartphones?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Yes, I will undertake to do that. I think it is interesting that that type of question is exactly the reason why the use of what will become statutory guidance is a more appropriate way of dealing with the nuances of this issue than the type of legislative ban on the face of the Bill that some people are arguing for. Because of that flexibility, I will undertake to do that.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
I thank the Minister for her comments and response to the points raised. I thank all noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, for setting out clearly, alongside myself, our position on social media. I welcome the comments on having better clarity on the smartphones issue. I am not minded to test the opinion of the House on this occasion.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 41B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 41C.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion B, I shall speak also to Motions B1, C and C1. In this group, we will debate amendments relating to school uniforms and admissions.
Motion B relates to Amendment 41B. Motion B1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, seeks to review the effectiveness of a numeric limit on branded uniform within 12 months, alongside consideration of a monetary cap. His subsequent Motion would require a review of the effectiveness of measures to control branded item costs within 12 months.
I thank the noble Lord again for his championing of this issue. I know from our conversations how dear this issue is to him and how determined he is to make a difference for the children and families in his home town and up and down the country. I admire his commitment to thinking about the various ways in which we can achieve that. I make it clear that we share the aim of bringing down costs for parents, in particular for those who find it most difficult to afford school uniforms. This Government of course want to understand the impact that our manifesto commitment has made and whether it is meeting our shared objectives. As required with legislation, we will conduct a post-implementation review to capture the actual impact of the policy and consider any modifications that may be recommended.
Furthermore, the DfE has engaged with parents and school leaders extensively, over many years, on school uniform policies, including conducting detailed cost surveys. We will continue to monitor the impact of this measure, informed by the latest available evidence. For this reason, legislation on this is unnecessary.
The priority now is to provide certainty for schools and parents about the Government’s intent. We fear that these amendments might risk some uncertainty at a time when schools will be focused on implementing a numeric limit, which was not only a government manifesto commitment but was backed by both parents and the British public. A numeric limit is simple, transparent and enforceable, and we have committed to further strengthening existing statutory guidance to be clear that high-cost compulsory items should be avoided.
Motion C relates to Amendment 102, and Motion C1, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, insists on this amendment. Amendment 102 seeks to limit the circumstances in which the independent adjudicator can specify a lower published admission number—PAN—following an upheld objection. The Government are committed to ensuring that quality and parental choice are central to PAN decisions. Our amendment in lieu, introduced in the other place, makes this clear by ensuring that regulations will require the adjudicator to have regard to the impact on school quality and parental preference when specifying a school’s PAN following an upheld objection.
However, the noble Baroness’s amendment would create a blanket exemption for a significant proportion of schools, with no allowance for local circumstances such as the scale of demographic change. It would hinder sensible, community-focused decision-making. For example, in areas such as London, where most schools are performing well, significantly falling pupil numbers are impacting even good schools. Local authorities and schools are already taking tough decisions about closures, amalgamations and PAN reductions. This measure can and should be part of the solution to ensure that all pupils continue to have a choice of high-quality school places close to home.
Our amendment in lieu will be reinforced through new statutory principles that we intend to apply through secondary legislation, as set out in the policy paper we distributed before the recess. These will inform adjudicator decisions and help ensure that the reduction of good school places will only ever occur as a last resort.
As I emphasised, we are committed to ensuring that school quality and parental choice are central to any decisions on PAN, as set out in the published policy paper and reflected in the amendment passed in the other place, which we are considering today. That is why I can confirm that, should this House desire it, the Government will bring forward an amendment in the other place. This will reflect our commitment that school quality and parental choice must be at the heart of decisions on PAN by placing in the Bill a requirement on adjudicators to take account of school quality and parental preference before deciding a PAN following an upheld objective.
I also commit that we will require the adjudicator, through a mix of primary and secondary legislation, to consult key parties, including the admissions authority, the local authority and the relevant DfE regional director, on their views on alternatives to reducing the PAN before making a determination.
Collectively, this will ensure that reducing places at great schools is only ever a last resort and deliver a choice of good local school places for communities. We will continue to engage with stakeholders, including the Confederation of School Trusts, on this measure, including proposed changes to secondary legislation and the School Admissions Code. We will ensure that a robust decision-making framework is in place to protect high-quality education. The CST has welcomed the amendment made in the other place to the Bill as a step towards achieving that. I beg to move.
Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)
Lord Gove (Con)
My Lords, I support the points made by my noble friends Lady Barran and Lord Agnew. We are approaching the end of our consideration of this legislation, which comes as we all reflect on the huge gains that have been made by English schools in the last two decades. Improvements in schools in England have not been matched by schools in Scotland or Wales. This is not because students in Scotland and Wales are less intelligent or teachers less motivated but because the reforms that were introduced under Tony Blair and sustained during the coalition years and thereafter had two principles at their heart: greater autonomy for the front line and support for good schools to expand, so that their practice could be adopted by schools that were performing less well and so more students could benefit.
Of the two final elements that we are considering here, a government cap on the number of labelled items of school uniform that a school can require of its students is a preposterous piece of micromanagement, driven by the worst sort of virtue signalling. It is designed to convey that the Government are on the side of the poor, even as the measures on planned pupil admission numbers restrict the access of poor students to the very best schools.
When it comes to school uniform, we know from the voices of head teachers on the front line the benefits that an effective school uniform policy can have in contributing to ethos, discipline and a sense of inclusivity when our society is increasingly tribalised and polarised. Rather than listen to the testimony of head teachers—including the country’s very best head teacher, Katharine Birbalsingh, who has pointed out the folly of this policy—the Government insist that the best way of helping the poor is price capping and telling head teachers that they know better. All the evidence of history flies in the face of the course that the Government are setting. The fact that we have an absurd question about whether or not there should be an overall price cap or a price cap on particular items just shows the folly of going down this micro-interventionist line.
The second element that we are debating is pupil admissions numbers. I am grateful to the Minister for acknowledging that there are reasons why we should take account of quality and of the wishes of pupils and parents, but the most effective way of doing so is by not capping the growth of good schools. This legislation allows the Government and their agencies to cap the growth of those good schools to keep less-good schools open and provide a less-good education in the name of bureaucratic and local government convenience.
The purpose of school reform is to give pupils a better education, not to make life easier for bureaucrats or head teachers who are not performing their responsibility. Once again, I wonder what the point of the last two decades of education reform was if the current Government are going to look at those two decades, when politicians across parties were united in increasing autonomy at the front line and helping good schools to expand, and diminish the force of both those changes. It is not too late for the Minister, who played a very distinguished role in the Governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, to say to the current Prime Minister and the current Education Secretary that it is time to learn the lesson from those who went before, rather than repeating the mistakes of a socialist and interventionist past.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, several noble Lords have spoken in this small debate. I particularly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Gove, to the consideration of the Bill. I am not sure that he contributed in the very many sessions we have had up until this point, but better late than never. As always, he had something interesting to say, even if I think he is wrong and disagree with him.
Let us focus, as this group does, on Motion B and Motion B1 on Lords Amendment 41D, which seeks to require a review of the effectiveness of the limit on branded items of school uniform, with particular reference to introducing a monetary cap. As I said in my opening speech, we believe that these amendments are necessary, and I commit to the noble Lord that we will monitor the impact as we implement the limit. That does not need to be in legislation, and the amendment risks creating some uncertainty for schools and parents at a time when schools will be implementing the limit.
For noble Lords’ information, the limit was included in the Government’s manifesto, is widely welcomed by parents and others, and is focused on what we believe is the simplest way to deliver this, which is a limit on branded items in school uniforms. We have been clear about our concerns with a cost cap, which is not the proposal here, and do not believe it would be the most effective way to reduce costs for parents. Our proposal for a numeric limit is clearer and simpler, will deliver savings more quickly and is overwhelmingly backed by parents.
On the discussion about admissions, several noble Lords have spoken to Motion C, relating to Amendment 102, and Motion C1, which insists on it. Amendment 102 seeks to limit the circumstances in which the adjudicator can specify a lower published admissions number. This proposition in this legislation is very much a function of the time, in terms of demography, that we find ourselves in. If we were in a position where the number of children in our schools was growing then all of us—as was the case with the previous Labour Government—would be very relaxed about allowing good schools to expand with no control or very little limitation, but that is not the situation we find ourselves in.
As I suggested in my opening speech, the fall in the number of children coming through the system will create difficult decisions to be made in some areas. They will make the local authority responsibility to ensure a sufficiency of places more complex and risk a situation where good schools are forced to close because of a failure to be able to consider the impact of falling numbers across a range of schools. That is the context in which we are introducing this measure.
This Government support good schools expanding where that is right for the local area. In fact, this measure may help to secure more places in high-performing schools in areas where they are needed, but the noble Baroness’s Motion does not allow sufficient nuance to ensure that local circumstances can be taken into account, especially in this time of changing demographics. Our amendments in lieu will ensure that an independent decision can be taken by the adjudicator, in the local context, and with school quality and parental preference at its heart.
I will respond to a few of the charges made by noble Lords opposite. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is understandably concerned that local authorities might misuse this power to reduce the number of places at academies. To be clear, and I know that the noble Baroness knows this, local authorities will not be able to set an academy’s PAN. The schools adjudicator, not the local authority, will be the final decision-maker. The adjudicator is independent and impartial, and will come to their own independent conclusion on whether to uphold an objection to the PAN.
The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, suggested—given his experience, including his ministerial experience, I am not sure that he meant this—that we were inventing a new set of bureaucrats, in his and others’ words. That is not true. The school adjudicator system has existed and played a very similar role throughout the whole period of the previous Government and the period of the previous Labour Government. This is not something new. What is more, of course, the statutory School Admissions Code and the new regulations that we have committed to will set out what the adjudicator must consider where they uphold an objection and subsequently set the PAN for the school.
As reflected in our amendment, school quality and parental choice will be central considerations and ensure that this power is not used to prop up failing schools. School adjudicators, as I have said, have existed for some time and are independent. They have significant experience of considering objection cases and already consider both objections to PAN reductions and requests by maintained schools to vary their PAN downwards, in the light of a major change in circumstances. They possess considerable, extensive and comprehensive knowledge of the education system and they include MAT CEOs, head teachers, education lawyers and local authority directors, so the characterisation of them as bureaucrats is both factually inaccurate and unfair.
Our amendments would ensure, as I have said, that the independent, expert adjudicator—the system which has existed for very many years throughout several Governments—will be required, in making this decision, to have regard to the impact on school quality and parental preference. They also enable the Government to make regulations on other matters which the adjudicator must or must not take account of when deciding on a PAN.
I just reiterate the point that I made in opening. We recognise the point made by the Confederation of School Trusts about the requirement for the adjudicator to consider, in addition to quality and parental preference, the effectiveness and efficiency of the provision in an area and to consult key parties, including the relevant DfE regional director, on their views on alternatives to reducing a PAN before making a determination. It is clear that alternatives must have been considered as part of that process.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 102 in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 102C to 102G.
““relevant area”, in relation to a school, has the same meaning as in section 88F (see subsection (4) of that section).”
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.
Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 106 in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 106C to 106E.
“Guidance on use of mobile phones etc in schools in England
In Part 10 of the Education Act 1996, after Chapter 2 insert—
“CHAPTER 2A
GUIDANCE ON MOBILE PHONES ETC: SCHOOLS IN ENGLAND
550C Guidance on use of mobile phones etc in schools in England
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations require the appropriate person for a school in England to have regard to guidance described in subsection (2) in exercising functions relating to the conduct of the school.
(2) The guidance referred to in subsection (1) is guidance issued from time to time by the Secretary of State about registered pupils at schools having mobile phones and other personal interactive communication devices with them, and using them—
(a) during school hours, and
(b) on school premises.
(3) Subsections (4) to (6) apply for the purposes of this section.
(4) The “appropriate person” is—
(a) for the following kinds of school, the head teacher—
(i) a community, foundation or voluntary school;
(ii) a community or foundation special school;
(iii) a maintained nursery school;
(iv) a pupil referral unit;
(v) a school approved by the Secretary of State under section 342 (approval of non-maintained special schools);
(b) for any other kind of school, the proprietor.
(5) “School hours”, in relation to a school, means any time between the start of the first school session on a school day and the end of the last school session on the same day.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion D, and I beg to move.
Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)
Schoolchildren: Swimming
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cryer
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the levels of swimming attainment among school children.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, swimming and water safety are vital life skills, and every child should have the opportunity to learn how to swim and how to keep themself safe around water before they leave primary school. The latest figures indicate that 73% of children can swim 25 metres by the time they leave primary school. We are focused on improving that figure through our forthcoming changes to the curriculum and the support for schools to deliver PE and sport.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend, but I have a slightly different figure for 11 year-olds. According to Swim England, only one in four 11 year-olds leaving primary school can swim 25 metres. That is not entirely unrelated to the fact that we have lost 500 pools in the last 16 years. That is not the gross figure; that is the net figure.
Will my noble friend undertake to publish all information and statistics relating to school swimming attainment? Will she also undertake to work with Ministers at the DCMS, among others, to drive up the number of pools, so that the number of operating pools at the end of this Parliament is greater than at the beginning? Will she also undertake to work with Swim England, among others, to reverse this downward trend and make sure that we have more children able to swim when they finish primary school? The bottom line is that swimming is the one sport that can make the difference between life and death.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Starting with the last point first, we are already working with Swim England, among others, to improve both the resource and the curriculum when it comes to swimming and water safety. My noble friend is right about the big fall in pools between 2010 and 2026. In fact, I have a slightly higher figure than 500: my figure is 591 fewer pools. Of course, that is a challenge not only for schools but for local government. I know it is something that colleagues at the DCMS are not only concerned about but have also included in the additional investment they are providing for community facilities.
Baroness Davies of Devonport (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cryer, for bringing up this subject. He mentioned the loss of pools. I add that 1,200 pools are now more than 40 years old and are coming to the end of their maintenance life. We are losing 25 pools a year at the moment, which are not being replaced. Obviously, wages are up, energy bills are now twice what they were before Covid and those facilities are very expensive to maintain. The loss of that water space means that children are risking swimming in dangerous places instead of in swimming pools, which is where they should swim.
In the 1980s, I gave evidence to the Select Committee that helped to get swimming on the national curriculum. We are not getting our kids swimming. As mentioned, 25% are not learning. At Easter, I went to see a school where they brought a pool in and managed to get 150 classes in instead of its normal 10 because it costs £250 to bus their children to the local swimming pool. Can the Government please tell me that they will think outside the box about how we make sure that our children are taught to swim, because it is a vital skill, not a luxury?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We agree that it is a vital skill, not a luxury, which is why it and water safety are key parts of the national curriculum at key stages 1 and 2. We are also aware that factors including pressures around energy costs and ageing facilities may impact the future provision of sports facilities, including swimming pools. That is why, in June last year, the Government committed £400 million to transform sports facilities, including public leisure, across the whole of the UK over the next four years.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I return to the data and, in particular, swimming attainment by region and socio-economic background. I think many in your Lordships’ House fear that there is a huge disparity. If there is, what plans do His Majesty’s Government have to close that gap in regional variances? If the Minister has the data, it would be really useful. If she does not, will she write to us?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that there is a disparity between ethnic groups, in particular, and between more and less disadvantaged children, which is why this is a national entitlement through the national curriculum. Clearly, we need to do more to ensure that every child is getting opportunities, such as, for example, the £300,000 per year to a consortium led by the Youth Sports Trust to deliver Inclusion 2028, which is a programme that upskills teachers to deliver high-quality, inclusive PE school sport and physical activity, including swimming, to pupils with SEND.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that these pools did not just disappear? They were part of the austerity model that was pursued by the last Tory Government. Have they learned that lesson or are they going to pursue similar policies which starve public resources?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend has put rather more clearly what I slightly pussy-footed around in drawing a comparison between 2010 and 2026. He is right. Those 591 pools did not just disappear by virtue of planning. They disappeared because of a failure of the last Government to invest in not just swimming but local government and public facilities for activity.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, it is not just a question of young people, although that is terribly important. A very high proportion of adults in this country cannot swim. They may have had opportunities, or they may not, but can we also encourage adults, older people, to learn to swim? They are never too old to learn, and they can act as guardians to help others who may get into difficulties. Can we please encourage older people also to learn?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My ministerial responsibilities do not quite stretch to adults and swimming. However, it is a very fair point and, as we have discussed in response to this Question, I will continue working with my ministerial colleagues in DCMS and in MHCLG to ensure that there is provision for adults as well as children to be able to engage in sporting activity, including swimming.
Lord Storey (LD)
Swimming is an important part of water safety, and we welcome the fact that the Government have included classroom-based water safety education in the curriculum from September. Bystander rescue, including members of the public safely rescuing a person in distress, remains a weak link in the chain of survival for drowning. In the review of the PE curriculum, will the Minister consider including safe water rescue such as line throwing, using public life-saving equipment and participation in life-saving sport?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that it is already the case that in the strengthened RSHE guidance we have increased the focus on water safety. We have the opportunity, in the review that we are doing post the curriculum and assessment review, to redraft the national PE curriculum. In doing so, I am sure that some of the points made by the noble Lord about essential life-saving competencies will be borne in mind.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure whether I have to declare my interest, but I try to swim every day. Sadly, I am not quite as fast as my noble friend, but I keep trying.
Could the Minister update the House? The Prime Minister made an announcement in June 2025 about school sports partnerships. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that partnerships are happening with national governing bodies and local clubs in relation to swimming, including for top-up classes?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Well done to the noble Baroness: I am rather more a floater than a swimmer, it would be fair to say. She is right that last June the Prime Minister announced a new national approach to PE and school sport in the PE and School Sport Network, which will bring together the department and schools, along with national governing bodies and local clubs. We are in the process of procuring a national delivery partner for that, and we expect that partner to be in place from autumn 2026.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will be aware that in the Navy we are all taught to swim. Does she agree with me that it is rather important that we enhance our swimming ability, because the reduced number of ships we have do not now have the weapons they require to defend themselves, and unfortunately that may mean that people have to swim more than they should?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is always clever at turning a question to his advantage. I will simply say that I absolutely know, as I think he does, the significance that this Government place on increased investment in our defence capacity, which is why we have seen the largest increase in defence spending pledged since the end of the Cold War, and why I know this is being actively considered not only by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence but by the Chancellor.
Buckinghamshire Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That the Grand Committee do consider the Buckinghamshire Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Surrey County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That the Grand Committee do consider the Surrey County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Warwickshire County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That the Grand Committee do consider the Warwickshire County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to ask the Committee to consider these three instruments together today: the Buckinghamshire Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026, the Surrey County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026 and the Warwickshire County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026.
These statutory instruments were laid before this House on 25 February 2026 under the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. If approved, the Department for Work and Pensions will transfer adult education functions and the associated adult skills fund to these local areas for the start of the new academic year, 1 August 2026. These local areas will then have the freedom to use their adult skills fund to help their residents meet their skills needs, fulfil their potential and contribute to the growth of their region.
Since 2018, a portion of the adult skills fund has been devolved to local bodies, which have exercised control over that spending in their area. For the most part, these organisations have been combined authorities, although functions and funding were devolved at Cornwall Council one year ago.
In March 2024, the previous Government agreed devolution deals with the three local authorities we are considering today. Those deals, taken forward by this Government, committed to full devolution of the adult education budget, now called the adult skills fund. This was to be exercised from the academic year 2026-27, subject to readiness conditions and parliamentary approval. It has been judged that all three authorities have demonstrated readiness to acquire functions; therefore, these instruments are the final step in ensuring that they are able to deliver from August this year.
The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will confer the same functions on strategic authorities, to be exercised from at least one full academic year after the authority’s establishment. The package of these instruments, and that Bill, will increase the percentage of the adult skills fund that is devolved from 67% to 76%.
Six further areas agreed devolution deals through this Government’s devolution priority programme. The Government are going through the legislative process to form these areas, with the intention that they deliver adult education functions from August 2027, subject to ministerial approval. Taken together, these actions deliver on the Government’s commitment to empower local leaders and unlock growth.
The specific adult education functions being transferred to these three local areas are under the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, and will be exercisable by these local authorities. These SIs transfer three specific duties set out in the 2009 Act from the Secretary of State to each local authority. These duties are: Section 86, which places a duty to secure appropriate facilities for education for individuals aged 19 or over, excluding those under 25 with an education, health and care plan; Section 87, which places a duty on the authority to secure the provision of facilities for adults who lack particular skills to obtain relevant qualifications; and Section 88, which places a duty on the authority to ensure that these courses of study are free for eligible learners. The duties above, solely exercisable by the local authority, are subject to an exception in relation to apprenticeships training, persons subject to adult detention or any power to make regulations or orders.
The SIs also confer other powers and duties on each local authority to be exercisable concurrently with the Secretary of State. These are also set out in the 2009 Act and are: Section 90, the duty to encourage participation in education and training for persons aged 19 or over; Section 100(1), provision of financial resources, which is the general funding power for the adult skills fund; and Section 100(1B), provision of financial resources in connection with technical education.
The adult skills fund supports millions of adults across England to develop the skills they need to equip them for work, an apprenticeship or further learning. Local areas are best placed to identify what their local people, communities and businesses need. Strategic authorities decide how they spend their funding to deliver opportunity and growth in their area, and they will be able to respond in a more agile way to local priorities and emerging challenges, and address barriers more effectively.
Local areas can apply the flexibility that devolved adult skills funding offers to identify adults in their region who are most in need and invest more funding to support those groups, to work directly with employers, training providers and other local partners to commission new provision to meet local needs, and to set funding rates that incentivise delivery of provision that offers the most positive impacts for their region. Within this local flexibility, strategic authorities must offer free courses for adults to deliver national statutory entitlements in English, maths, digital courses, level 2 and 3 qualifications for those who do not yet have those skills, and free courses for jobs. This funding provides an essential stepping stone for adults with the lowest skills.
I recognise that the nature of skills challenges and the solutions will be different in every region. That is why I am pleased that three new areas are poised to take the opportunities and to develop new thinking and priorities for the adult skills fund in their areas. If the draft statutory instruments are approved, Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Warwickshire will be responsible for managing their adult skills funding allocation efficiently and effectively to deliver for their local residents. The DfE and the DWP have worked closely with each area over the last two years to ensure that they are ready to take on these functions and have provided implementation funding to help them to prepare effectively and support a smooth transition.
Each area has consented to the transfer of these powers and the making of these statutory instruments. They have also provided assurances that a permanent skills team is in place to manage delivery effectively. They have each developed a strategic skills plan setting out how they will use their devolved adult skills funding to meet key priorities, and I can confirm that, on the basis of the evidence submitted, Ministers have concluded that the statutory tests have been met. Each area has given its consent and demonstrated that devolution is likely to improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of people who live and work in the region, and a report has been laid before Parliament explaining how these conditions have been met.
To support future devolution and identify best practice, the Department for Work and Pensions will continue to hold constructive conversations with existing strategic authorities, other local areas and our colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on how devolution can help to shape future skills provision to meet local needs. I take this opportunity to thank all our partner organisations, particularly colleagues at Buckinghamshire Council, Surrey County Council and Warwickshire County Council, for their expertise and input in getting to this important milestone.
These statutory instruments will give those three authorities the opportunity to shape their adult education provision, address local barriers, focus provision to meet local needs, enhance economic growth and bring greater prosperity to their areas. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving us that introduction. It is nice to have her back, and I hope she is fully recovered. The most pedantic thing I could think to say is that the Minister said Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Warwickshire but the regulations are in a different order on the Order Paper, which says Warwickshire, Surrey and Buckinghamshire.
Having got that out of the way, my main question is this: we are in a situation where we are reforming local government involving different groups. Could she give us a slightly better idea, as I may have missed this in her initial statement, of how this actually transfers? Which authorities are expected to take it on once the county councils change? That is something that I would like to hear because it would give us an idea of what is going on. I remember from when we discussed this that the idea is that authorities will respond to local needs in their training. I had reservations because I am not quite sure how you define that, who should be moving on and what the structure will be, but that is for another day. Could we have an idea of which group will be taking charge after we have had the changes to local government?
I do not really have any other fundamental objections to these instruments, but I will add that the Minister spoke about those with low attainment. I wonder if one day I will get up in a debate on education and not mention special educational needs—I suppose it is quite possible—but what about identification of those who would benefit from this support and structure in acquiring these local resources? Do we have any development plans for it? That is a speculative question. If the Minister has any information that could be sent to me then I would be grateful to receive it, and if she has it now then I would be grateful to hear it.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak on these regulations, which transfer adult education functions to Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Warwickshire councils from the 2026-27 academic year and, as the Minister said, from 1 August 2026. I am very grateful for the detail that the Minister has given in setting out these measures.
The principle of devolution in adult skills is well-established and enjoys cross-party support. Bringing decisions closer to local labour markets and employers makes intuitive sense and these regulations build on that foundation. I do not oppose them; indeed, this policy is in line with the principle that we established during our time in government of devolving the adult skills budget. However, I would welcome the Minister’s reassurance on a number of points.
First, on funding, the Department for Education has cut the adult education budget by 60% for this academic year. Devolution is of limited value if it simply transfers responsibility without the resources to deliver. I know that the Minister gave some details on this, but can she confirm the indicative allocations for these authorities and explain how the Government will ensure that funding keeps pace with local demand? What data will the Government collect on devolved adult skills fund money spend and how this is being translated into outcomes? I am aware that industry experts have expressed some concerns about this.
Secondly, on accountability, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised this point, but I want to go a little bit further. One of the long-standing concerns with devolved skills funding is the absence of consistent comparable outcome data. Will the Government commit to publishing performance information at local authority level across both devolved and non-devolved areas so that Parliament and the public can assess whether the model is actually working? Can the Minister please tell us more about the lines of accountability and reporting? Who will have oversight of how adult education services in these authorities are performing, and how often will they be kept abreast of outcomes?
Thirdly, on structural stability, Surrey County Council is due to be abolished in 2027. Warwickshire is expected to be reorganised in 2028. The Government have indicated that functions will transfer to successor bodies, but I would welcome further clarity on the providers during this period of change. I know the noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised this issue. To go further, what safeguards are in place to protect learners and providers during this period? More broadly, why have the Government chosen to devolve these powers to local authorities now on the eve of their abolition?
Finally, on coherence, with some areas now holding devolved powers and others not, there is a real risk of a patchwork system emerging with uneven provision, inconsistent entitlements and fragmented oversight. How do the Government intend to maintain a coherent, national skills strategy while pursuing this localised approach? I am certain that the Minister is well placed to cover this area with her portfolio profile.
These regulations change not what adult education is provided but who controls it. That shift can bring real benefits, but only if accompanied by adequate funding, robust accountability and, of course, stable governance. I look forward to the Minister’s responses to the points I have raised but, as I have said before, we are broadly behind the measures that are being taken today.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I start by thanking noble Lords for their contributions and questions. I will endeavour to answer them and to get the SIs in the right order as I do so. Before I turn to the questions and the reasonable points that have been raised, I reiterate the important strategic role that devolution has to play in the growth of our economy across our country. These instruments broaden the scope of devolution, meaning more local decision-making in more areas across England than ever before. I recognise the noble Lord’s point, and I reiterate, as I did in my opening comments, that this was a process for these three authorities, started by the previous Government in 2024 and taken forward by this Government.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We could argue about the figures but, in the academic year 2025-2026, it was the case that the Government made a small cut to the adult skills fund in the very challenging fiscal context that we inherited. There have been no further reductions, nor will there be for this forthcoming academic year.
I do not want to get into a row about this, but adult skills funding has seen a considerable cut, along with its predecessor funds, from 2010 onwards. The job for this Government is to at the very least stabilise this important contribution to developing skills and providing opportunities for adults. We will determine the proportions of funding for each of these areas using historical spending from 2017-2018, with each area’s share calculated as the proportion of the ASF spent on local learners prior to devolution. We will continue to work closely with devolved areas to support them and to ensure efficient use of funding and the long-term sustainability of skills provision.
Noble Lords understandably asked how that accountability and reporting will work. Accountability arrangements for devolved organisations are set out in the British devolution accountability framework. As part of this, local areas with devolved powers are required both to submit annual assurance reports to the Department for Work and Pensions and to publish them on their own organisation’s website. They will set out what a devolved area has delivered against its strategic skills priorities over the previous academic year; that will include an assessment of key outcomes, local partnership work, achievements, challenges and lessons learned. Key data against which local areas are expected to report include adult skills fund data on spend and data on the number of learners in their local areas who are taking up their statutory entitlements. Skills England uses the information in each of these reports to undertake annual skills stocktakes with each local area in order to discuss key findings, including how any issues can be addressed.
Finally—I would have been disappointed if the noble Lord, Lord Addington, had not raised special educational needs and disability—I reiterate the point I made on devolution when I talked about the exception being for young people with education, health and care plans up to the age of 25. Those young people will still be funded through the 16-to-19 funding and will still have the provisions in their education, health and care plans delivered through that funding; the responsibility will remain.
More broadly, the statutory national entitlements focus in particular on those people who, perhaps by virtue of special educational needs or disabilities, have not been able to get a grade 4 in their English or maths GCSE, for example; have not had the opportunity to get to a level 2 or level 3 standard of education; or have not been able to develop digital skills up to level 1. They have a statutory national entitlement that must continue to be funded, regardless of the devolution of funds here. I hope that that provides some reassurance.
Lord Addington (LD)
What I would like to extract is the identification of those who have a learning disability or special educational need and who will require slightly different learning patterns to get the best results. More of the same in a system in which you have already failed will probably lead to more failure. That change in style requires some identification. It is something that we are told we will talk much more about in the next parliamentary Session; I just wondered whether there is any information available to us today about that.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Much of what we will be talking about in the next parliamentary Session will obviously relate to special educational needs and disability funding and provision in schools, both in early years and post-16. What we are talking about today is adult skills funding, which, as I said, for those with special educational needs, will be above the age of 25.
This does not mean that I do not think the noble Lord is making an important point. One of the things that devolution enables authorities to do—and one of the things that the adult skills fund already does—is provide opportunities for people who are a very long way away from the labour market, perhaps by virtue of disability, to get the necessary training for that. Perhaps I could write to the noble Lord about the other routes supported by DWP that would help enable people with learning disabilities, for example, to access work and get the sort of development that they might need in order to succeed in life. I will provide some more detail about that.
I reiterate that this fund carries out a very important function: supporting adults with the skills and learning they need to equip them for work, an apprenticeship or further learning. It can provide a stepping stone to progression and prosperity, particularly for disadvantaged adult learners. We believe that it can be delivered to greater effect, more efficiently and in line with local priorities through these devolution proposals. For that reason, I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Masculinity and Misogyny in Schools
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berger
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the results of the recent survey by the NASUWT on masculinity and misogyny in schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, misogyny has no place in our society or in our schools. The NASUWT survey is deeply concerning and underscores why delivering on the freedom from violence 10-year strategy to halve violence against women and girls is a necessity and a government priority. This Government are committed to tackling misogyny and the spread of toxic influences, with new misogyny resources for both teachers and parents, dedicated school programmes through the new VAWG strategy, and online safety resources.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, the NASUWT survey indicates that misogyny is on the rise among our young people. Some 23% of female teachers have experienced misogyny in our classrooms; this figure has increased year on year and is up 6% since 2023. Teachers are pointing to the influence of the manosphere, online misogyny and AI in spreading harmful narratives, and evidence indicates that social media use by young men is driving this growth in misogynistic beliefs. What assessment have the Government made of the role social media is playing in this worrying trend?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am sure it is the case that social media has had an impact here. We know the influence that those who choose to use it to express toxic masculinity and misogyny can have. That is why we need to support schools, as we are doing through increased investment in resources to help teachers and students to tackle misogyny. It is why the consultation on social media use among young people that the Government have launched is so important, and why we have committed to act on its conclusions.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, to pick up on the point about parents that the Minister raised, how do the Government intend to engage with not only parents but communities, particularly to deal with the negative cultural influences on the perception of women among some of our young people? It is not just in schools that this issue is happening; often it occurs at weekends and in our city centres. How can we engage with communities, as well as parents?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point. This needs to be tackled outside school, as well as inside. That is why the DfE has worked jointly with DSIT to design, test and launch a website for parents of all-age children to help them keep their children safe online. We are currently developing misogyny-specific content for that site that will give parents information and tools to spot warning signs and hold open conversations, and will direct them to further support that will link with the Home Office’s Enough campaign, about which we will be saying more soon.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, will the Government start with children in primary school?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The new RSHE guidance that we published and the curriculum are clear that there is important work to be done at key stage 2 to support children to develop their ideas and approach to healthy relationships. That is a really important baseline from which to talk more explicitly later in their school life about misogyny and how it is tackled.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, this report makes for quite harrowing reading, and it points to two particular things: one is misogyny and the other is a breakdown of discipline and respect for authority in school. What work are the Government doing to address this issue, which covers both girls and boys? In speaking to young boys about their behaviour, how are we going to avoid demonising boyhood?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord makes two important points. On the latter point, it is important that we recognise that the vast majority of boys and young men abhor misogyny as much as anybody else. Supporting them to be strong allies and to challenge their friends where necessary is an important part of the work. As the noble Lord suggests, one of the shocking elements of the NASUWT report is the suggestion that students are using misogyny to abuse teachers. Good behaviour in all our schools is the right of pupils and teachers. That is why every school has a legal responsibility to have a strong behaviour policy, and why we would expect strong action to be taken to protect staff, just as we would expect for students.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab)
My Lords, unfortunately, girls are not always able to feel safe in calling out sexist or abusive behaviour that they experience from other pupils in schools. What more can be done in schools, and after school, to give girls the confidence to speak out and feel safe?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend raises an important point—we want girls to be able to feel safe and to report, as she suggests. However, it should be not only the responsibility of girls to stand up for themselves in the face of misogyny; it should be part of the whole-school approach to challenge that and part of a school’s safeguarding process. Support for that is clearly spelled out in the Keeping Children Safe in Education statutory guidance, for staff to understand how to support girls when they report incidents and how to identify what is happening even if those incidents are not reported.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, is there any evidence that the problem is worse with a decline of single-sex schools? Would things be better if there were more single-sex schools, at least for girls?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The truth is that I do not know whether there is any evidence that supports that contention. The vast majority of children in this country do not go to single-sex schools. We need to ensure that every school, single-sex or not, recognises the need to tackle misogyny and is supported, as this Government will do, with the resources to be able to do that.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the Minister acknowledged the impact of harmful social media on our children’s attitudes and behaviour, so I am puzzled why the Government will not commit in primary legislation to restricting access to social media for under-16s. The noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd, the Secretary of State for DSIT, and the Prime Minister have all said that they intend to, but the government amendment does not include that commitment. Can the Minister explain why?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Can I say how much I am enjoying getting back to this in the next stage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill on Monday? We will have the opportunity, once again, to discuss the action that this Government have already taken to understand the concerns that there are about social media and to recognise the different views on how, in detail, we should respond. That is why, on 2 March, this Government launched the consultation on how, not whether, we should take action, with further measures to ensure that children have healthy relationships with technology, mobile phones and social media. It is why we tabled new powers that mean that we can act fast on the consultation’s findings—in months, rather than waiting years for new primary legislation every time technology evolves. I do not think it is unreasonable for a Government to act on the basis of consultation and detailed consideration.
Baroness Teather (LD)
My Lords, last week, I attended the Cambridge Disinformation Summit run by the Judge Business School, where a key takeaway for me was that restricting young people’s access to social media is not on its own a sufficient response to the risks that we are discussing today. Does the Minister agree that we need accountability from social media companies on algorithms that promote and target extremist content to both adults and children?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I largely agree with the noble Baroness. It is important that the strong powers within the Online Safety Act are implemented. However, the logic of her argument is that we need to make sure that we support children and young people and our schools to be able to challenge misogyny and avoid falling for the toxic influencers, while strengthening the good values and attitudes that most young people have. That is what we will be supporting our schools to do.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.
2A: Because the Commons consider the Amendment to be unnecessary in light of existing statutory guidance about bringing a child protection plan to an end and steps already being taken to strengthen multi-agency decision making relating to child protection.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I shall speak also to Motions B, K and K1. In this group we will be debating amendments made in this House relating to child protection plans, multi-agency child protection teams and local authority consent for children not in school. For each, I will set out the rationale for why the Government cannot accept these amendments.
I will speak first to Motion A relating to Amendment 2, originally tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, regarding decisions to end child protection plans for under-fives when care proceedings are initiated or a care or supervision order is granted. When care proceedings begin, the child protection plan should not automatically be discharged. Statutory guidance is clear that a multi-agency meeting should take place to make this decision.
The Ofsted inspection framework reflects this statutory guidance and includes a focus on child protection. However, I note the noble Baroness’s concerns about children losing support at key transition points, potentially making them more vulnerable. This is why we will strengthen statutory guidance to make sure that the reason for the decision and any ongoing support is recorded.
We expect expert practitioners in multi-agency child protection teams to make decisions about plans ending. These teams bring fresh child protection expertise to concerns and will know the circumstances of the child well, so they are best placed to make these important decisions. While senior and experienced directors of children’s services should get involved only when needed, this is already provided for in the statutory framework.
Motion B relates to Amendment 5, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, requiring that the Secretary of State delay an evaluation of the families first for children pathfinder in Parliament before the multi-agency child protection team measures come into force.
Effective multi-agency child protection practice, which prevents tragedies and saves lives, needs to happen now. Delay is unacceptable. The Government will set out implementation plans covering the next phase of children’s social care reform following Royal Assent, including information about the planned pathfinder evaluation.
This summer, we expect to publish interim findings that are informing national rollout. Clause 3 also includes powers to make regulations about the functions of multi-agency child protection teams. The regulations will be subject to consultation and parliamentary scrutiny and will reflect learning from the pathfinders and national reform rollout. Regulations are not expected to come into effect until 2027, but the system is rightly changing now and we must not hinder this.
I turn finally to Motion K, relating to Amendment 44, and Motion K1, relating to Amendment 44B in lieu, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. The amendment in lieu would require parents to obtain permission from their local authority before withdrawing their child from school for home education if their child is currently, or has ever been, the subject of care or supervision order proceedings, unless the child has since been adopted. We share the noble Baroness’s commitment to ensuring that every child is safe. However, we remain unconvinced about extending the consent requirement further. Children who are the subject of such proceedings would almost always fall within existing protections, either through a child protection plan triggering the Government’s proposed consent measure or as a looked-after child whose education is already determined by the local authority through their care plan.
We recognise concerns about children previously subject to proceedings potentially being vulnerable. That is why we have extended the consent requirement to children who have been on a child protection plan in the last five years and extended the school attendance order power to these children who are already being home educated. This approach maintains the high threshold for consent to child protection action, recognises that children may be vulnerable if they are withdrawn from school within five years after a plan ends, and balances this with the reality that families can and do change.
On Report, the noble Baroness referenced the review into the tragic death of Sara Sharif. We have already amended the Bill to respond directly to its recommendations. We will pilot mandatory meetings before any child in a pilot area can be removed from school for home education, and the new power for local authorities to request to visit home-educated children in their homes will benefit the children that the noble Baroness is most concerned about. Importantly, our wider children’s social care measures also strengthen information sharing, improve early preventive support, create new multi-agency child protection teams and strengthen the role of education and childcare settings in local safeguarding arrangements. It is for these reasons that the Government disagree with these amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5A.
5A: Because learning from the Families First for Children Pathfinder will be published and inform regulations under clause 3 and the Amendment would unnecessarily delay implementation of the legislative framework in the clause required to deliver multi-agency child protection teams.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 16, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 16A.
16A: Because the Commons does not consider the review proposed by the Amendment to be necessary in light of the ongoing public consultation on adoption and special guardianship support services.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion C and shall speak also to Motions D, E, F and F1. In this group, we will be debating amendments made in this House relating to the adoption and special guardianship support fund, sibling contact, regional co-operation arrangements and deprivation of liberty. For each, I will set out why the Government cannot accept these amendments.
I will speak to Motion C, relating to Amendment 16, originally tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, concerning a proposed review of the per-child funding level for the adoption and special guardianship support fund. The Government have confirmed £55 million for the support fund in 2026-27, with continuation into 2027-28. A 12-week public consultation on adoption support is under way, seeking evidence on what best supports adopted children and outlining eight proposals for a future system. Introducing the review proposed in the amendment could potentially inhibit balanced consideration of the consultation responses. We therefore cannot accept this.
Motion D relates to Amendment 17, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield. As we have previously set out, the amendment will not alter the duties placed on local authorities. There is already a requirement in regulations for local authorities to record in the care plan any contact arrangements made between a looked-after child and any sibling with whom they are not living. This is why the Government do not support this amendment.
Instead, we propose Amendment 17B in lieu, to add siblings to Section 34 of the Children Act 1989. This will make clear the expectations on local authorities to allow reasonable contact between children in care and their whole, half and step-siblings where this is consistent with their welfare: a duty that already exists for contact been children in care and their parents. I acknowledge Liberal Democrat Peers’ constructive engagement, including from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, and acknowledge in the other place the honourable Member for South Shields, Emma Lewell. Both have tirelessly campaigned for many years on the importance of relationships for children in care, and I therefore urge noble Lords to support this amendment.
Motion E relates to Amendment 19, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham. This amendment seeks to include integrated care boards in regional co-operation arrangements. The Government agree that health partners play a vital role in improving outcomes for looked-after children. However, existing duties under Sections 10 and 16E, 16G and 16J of the Children Act 2004 already require local authorities to co-operate with relevant partners, including ICBs, to promote children’s well-being. These duties will continue to apply to authorities entering into regional co-operation agreements. Following helpful discussions on Report, and with the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals, it is clear that these duties could be implemented more consistently.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 102, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 102A.
102A: Because the Amendment imposes inappropriate restrictions on the scope of the adjudicator’s powers to determine school admission numbers under clause 56 and the clause already provides for regulations to make provision about the matters the adjudicator must consider when making a determination about a school’s admission number.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend has already spoken to Motion L. I beg to move.
Motion L1 (as an amendment to Motion L)
Further Education (Initial Teacher Training) Regulations 2026
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the Grand Committee do consider the Further Education (Initial Teacher Training) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 50th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for their scrutiny of this instrument. These draft regulations were laid in Parliament on 22 January 2026.
As noble Lords will be aware, the quality of teaching is critical to securing the best outcomes for pupils, learners and students in all parts of our education system, from early years right through to adult education. In October last year, the post-16 education White Paper set out an ambitious vision for the future of our skills system in England. The further education sector is the driving engine of that vision. We must ensure that high-quality teaching is hard-wired into our colleges and training providers.
We are taking decisive steps now to improve and secure the quality of teacher training for the FE sector. Ensuring that there is an accessible, attractive and high-quality training offer for new teachers will help improve the recruitment and retention of teachers in the FE sector, contributing to the Government’s commitment to recruit an additional 6,500 teachers for our schools and colleges. It will also send a clear message about our focus on securing high and rising standards of teaching in our colleges.
This instrument marks an important step towards creating a regulated system of teacher training for FE, covering the full range of providers delivering relevant courses across the sector and based on clear, evidence-based quality standards. It dovetails with the focus on quality that comes with the new Ofsted inspection framework for initial teacher education, which will now encompass significantly more FE teacher training providers than it previously did.
For many years, successive Governments have focused efforts on securing standards of teacher training for our primary and secondary schools—with considerable success—but, until recently, that focus had not been extended to how well our FE teachers are being prepared. There is excellent practice in parts of the system, and regulation must not constrain or discourage innovation and excellence. However, there is too much inconsistency across the sector, and some deeply concerning examples of poor practice in FE teacher training have emerged in recent years. Trainees have not always been guaranteed a high-quality training experience that prepares them to be great FE teachers, and employers have not always been assured that teacher training courses are equipping new teachers with the skills and knowledge they will need.
The regulatory system created by these regulations will place new requirements on all providers of specified FE teacher training courses in England. This includes universities, colleges, training providers and any other organisations delivering such courses. These providers will be required: to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State on the curriculum content of FE teacher training programmes; to have regard to guidance on delivery standards for FE teacher training courses; to register with the Department for Education as a provider of FE teacher training courses; and to submit regular data and information to the Department for Education relating to any specified FE teacher training courses provided.
These measures are proportionate but significant in their intended impact. For the first time, we, employers and potential new teachers will have clear sight of what teacher training provision is being offered, where and by whom. Such transparency is a key ingredient of a quality-focused system. That focus will be enhanced further by requiring all providers of specified courses to have regard to clear, evidence-based standards on course delivery and curriculum content.
DfE officials have worked closely, over a sustained period of time, with stakeholders from the FE provider and teacher training sectors. There is widespread consensus that the approach we are pursuing will deliver a clear, positive dividend in driving up standards, while ensuring that providers continue to have the flexibility they need to exercise their own professional and expert judgment.
These measures have been shaped by public consultation, a formal call for evidence and sustained engagement with professionals from across the sector. I record my thanks to all those who have contributed their time and expertise to the process.
Particular thanks are due to the expert group convened by the Department for Education, chaired by Anna Dawe OBE, principal of Wigan and Leigh College, one of the first technical excellence colleges, which has played a pivotal role in advising on the evidence for high-quality content in FE teacher training. I beg to move.
Schools (Recording and Reporting of Seclusion and Restraint) (England) Regulations 2025
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity today to respond to concerns raised by noble Lords and to clarify areas of misunderstanding, including in some of the analysis during this debate. The question of how schools use restrictive interventions, including physical restraint and seclusion, goes to the heart of how we keep children safe, support staff and uphold the trust of families. These interventions can have real and lasting effects, which is why this Government have taken such care in revising the Use of Reasonable Force guidance for schools and strengthening the framework around its use. Yet it is equally true that there will be moments, rare but critical, when the use of reasonable force or another restrictive intervention is both lawful and necessary to keep a child or those around them safe, and we cannot shy away from that reality.
In such circumstances, staff must be confident in what the law allows, clear on how to act safely and supported by leadership that builds strong partnerships with families, and provides parents with a clear and timely picture of their child’s experience. This sits at the heart of our wider approach of calm, caring and predictable environments supported by early, support-first intervention, as set out in our recently published schools White Paper. In doing so we ensure that every school and every classroom provides a safe, supportive place where every child, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, feels that they belong and can thrive.
It was with these principles in mind that we introduced new regulations requiring schools to record and report all incidents of seclusion and non-force-related restraint to parents, strengthening consistency and ensuring that parents are informed about significant events affecting their child. The consultation that we undertook early last year provided invaluable insight. While I understand the frustrations of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, some of the words that he used about the department’s approach to engaging with schools, professionals and trade unions—that is widespread in the work that we do—were not fair and were significantly overstated.
During the course of that consultation, we heard clear concerns from parents, Ofsted and the Equality and Human Rights Commission about inconsistency in the monitoring of seclusion compared with physical force. There was real concern that this could lead schools to view seclusion as somehow easier or safer. That is not a message that any of us would wish schools to take, and the updated guidance directly addresses that risk. The revised guidance and new legislation equip schools to develop clear and inclusive policies, ensuring that safeguarding sits at the centre of decisions about restrictive interventions. It places strong emphasis on early help, understanding what sits behind behaviour, and using prevention and de-escalation strategies wherever possible. But it also recognises that when an intervention is necessary, staff must feel supported and able to act appropriately, lawfully and safely.
Importantly, every decision must take account of the welfare and needs of all children, including those with SEND, ensuring that responses are proportionate and rooted in an understanding of children’s needs and experiences. From April 2026, schools will be legally required, under these regulations, to record and report each significant incident of force, seclusion or non-force-related restraint to parents as soon as possible.
On the point about seclusion raised by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, it is worth reminding ourselves of the definition of seclusion in this guidance. In these circumstances, we are talking about non-disciplinary interventions. I understand his concerns, which I share, about the need to ensure that teachers have the wherewithal and ability, through either suspension or other disciplinary measures, to maintain the calm classrooms that every child deserves. However, the seclusion covered in these regulations does not relate to those disciplinary areas.
On disciplinary provisions, the Government, in the most recent schools White Paper, came forward with proposals for how we can better handle, for example, internal suspensions. Those are not covered here. For clarity, seclusion here applies only where a pupil is prevented from leaving a space and is detained alone, other than as a disciplinary measure. That reflects the Equality and Human Rights Commission definition, which describes seclusion as the withdrawal of a pupil against their will and their confinement alone in a space they are not free to leave. In response to points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in some of his communication, to be clear, seclusion does not include brief voluntary timeout, agreed calming arrangements or the planned non disciplinary use of separation or sensory spaces to support a pupil to regulate their emotions.
Schools must record all incidents of seclusion and non-force-related restraint. They may choose to record additional information, but such measures should not be described as “seclusion”. On the extent to which this process can be used for school improvement, we expect schools to use the data they collect to review their approaches and reduce the need for restrictive interventions through early, support-first approaches. Greater transparency will of course build trust with families and reassure the wider public about how such interventions are used.
I recognise the concerns raised about the evidence base underpinning the impact assessment. There is currently no national dataset on seclusion or non-force restraint. Therefore, internal exclusions were used as a cautious proxy because no better evidence exists. This is an imperfect measure, and the frequency of these incidents will vary significantly between settings—for example, in many secondary schools they are rare. However, in the absence of more robust data, it was the only viable approach. It may also be helpful to clarify that the monetised analysis of the impact assessment focuses on independent schools. Under Better Regulation requirements, as a department we must quantify the impact of new duties on businesses, and independent schools fall within that definition. State-funded schools do not do so, and so are not included in that element of the assessment. That is not to say there will not be an impact on state-funded schools—I will come to what that might be in a moment —it is simply to say that the approach taken in the impact assessment was in line with the Government’s Better Regulation requirements for how impact assessments are put together.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others also raised concerns about the department’s estimate of the time it will take school staff to record incidents. Although the evidence base is limited, I reassure noble Lords that this estimate assumes that schools already have or will put in place efficient and streamlined record-keeping systems. Our contacts with schools suggest that is the case in very many cases, and many do so already as part of wider safeguarding responsibilities. Our guidance is designed to support schools rather than add unnecessary burden. It is worth emphasising that many schools, as I already suggested, rarely use force or restrictive interventions. This has been fully reflected in our assessment of burden.
Schools White Paper: Every Child Achieving and Thriving
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the first thing to say is that I have been asking for this to come out for a long time, so I thank the Government for getting there eventually. The document does accept that it is a difficult and slow process that we are starting, and anybody who kids themselves that it is not will be doing a disservice to everybody involved. We are talking about 2030 for getting some structure in place. You have to train people, to get other people used to being told that they are operating differently in the classroom, and to get schools to re-incentivise, with an inclusion strategy and individual support plans. This is a cultural shift which will take real effort and time to push through. If we accept that, how will we make sure that everybody in every school understands that they have a duty and the ability to identify and tell parents what the problem is? That is where it all starts to go wrong.
At the moment, there is a disincentive for anybody to be identified by a school as having a special educational need, because you have got a budget that comes from the main school budget, which means you have got a choice between four kids getting their dyslexia support or help for autism or ADHD, or the roof leaks. How is that to be squared? It is not just more money; it is the allocation of money, and it is the duty. If you have an individual plan going through, are you flexible enough to allow that to be implemented?
There has been an acceptance in this Chamber every time I have spoken that you do not work harder; you work smarter. Individual groups will have a different take on this. I am a dyslexic, and I declare my interest as the president of the British Dyslexia Association. I use technology and I work with people who use technology—I declare my interest as the chairman of Microlink PC. The incentives I have there and the problems I square up to are different to those in the autism sector, which is probably one of the most vocal groups. How are we going to work these two in together? How are we going to have the flexibility to allow a school to actually undertake these different types of approach?
If you have that, if you make that an incentive, you stand a chance of getting a better situation, but only if you have identified that you can get the right help to the right person. Take dyslexia—I will cling to mother and talk to the one I know about. If it is not just the English teacher but the maths teacher who realises bad short-term memory means these individuals will not remember formulas and equations, bring those two together so everybody knows you will work differently. You can go into dyscalculia and others. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, is not here but she has actually raised this and done a great service in bringing it further forward. When these groups come through, how are we going to get the capacity into the school to identify and bring it forward?
The reassessment of all plans and support structures when you get to secondary school is a natural break—you go from acquiring basic skills to acquiring knowledge to pass exams. But how are we going to make sure that is not something where somebody says, “Right, you are doing this here”; it should be about how you continue, not how you stop. There is a fear, and it has become very apparent. I recommend the “Woman’s Hour” podcast if noble Lords want to have a definition of the fear that has come out about this. How are we going to deal with that? These are the sort of questions we are going to have to start to answer today and carry on with.
I welcome the approach here, but unless you actually get a more coherent pattern that reassures those who have fought to get their EHCPs, spending time, blood and not a little money on them, what are we going to do? Can we also have a commitment from the Minister that the Government will be looking at how to remove lawyers from the system? In many cases, there are a lot of very second-rate lawyers who have taken this work on and are milking the system. We cannot go back to this. We cannot go back to this situation where only the articulate and well off are getting the help they need.
I applaud the attention towards subjects like sport and music, because it helps with special educational needs if you have got some positive attitude towards them. How are we going to bring this together? How is the flexibility and that inclusion pathway going to be put down so that the rest of this can be put on? If you get that right, you stand a chance of making a real improvement here. If we do not have that and we do not have the identification capacity, you will not achieve that much.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, our White Paper, Every Child Achieving and Thriving, sets out our ambition to improve the lives of all children and young people, combining the support they receive at home with a school experience that is challenging, enriching and inclusive.
First, we will broaden children’s experience of education with a knowledge-rich curriculum, smooth the transition between phases, and introduce an enrichment entitlement for every child and accountability changes that promote breadth.
Secondly, we will ensure that children who have been sidelined for too long are fully included. We want every child to have the best start in life, with support available earlier and locally. Deprivation funding will be targeted to boost outcomes for the most disadvantaged children, and we are launching two place-focused missions to provide a blueprint for national change. Our ambitious SEND reforms will support mainstream inclusion so that children can access help without waiting for lengthy assessments or having to engage with lawyers—including from our £1.8 billion Experts at Hand programme, wrapping professionals such as speech and language therapists around schools, and removing the incentive that both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have identified for parents, who are desperate for the support that they need and want for their children, to have to fight through a lengthy process to get an education, health and care plan. But for those with more complex needs, new specialist provision packages, designed with experts and parents, will define the support required. All this is backed by £7 billion more for SEND in 2028-29 compared with 2025-26.
Thirdly, we will move from children and communities withdrawing from school to engaging with a new pupil engagement framework. Improved behaviour and attendance support and clearer information for parents will help strengthen relationships between families and schools.
Finally, we are building the strong foundations needed to deliver this change—more expert teachers, better training and improved maternity provision, deeper school collaboration through a trusted model and innovation powered by data, AI and regional RISE teams. These reforms, shaped by the largest national conversation on SEND, put children, families and inclusion at the heart of our system, and together they will ensure that every child in every community can achieve and thrive.
To give more detail on the incentives and funding point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, we have been clear that we will reform the system through the addition of £4 billion over the next three years, including the £1.6 billion for the inclusive mainstream fund, because we must get to a position where more parents feel confident that their children are receiving the support that they need in schools, alongside their friends and as part of their communities. We will provide £1.6 billion for that fund over three years, with over £500 million per year over the next three years to mainstream schools and other educational settings. That fund will give schools and other education settings direct responsibility over funding to empower them to deliver for children and young people with SEND. Over time, there will be a rebalancing of funding from the high needs budget into schools’ budgets, in line with new accountability arrangements—funding in schools where it needs to make the difference.
In addition, our £1.8 billion fund will enable there to be what we are calling Experts at Hand—speech and language therapists, educational psychologists, occupational therapists and others supporting children and teachers before the point at which children need to get to have an education, health and care plan. That funding will provide, for example, the equivalent of 160 days’ worth of support in a secondary school and 40 additional days in primary. We will expect schools to work in groups in order to ensure that, where it does not necessarily make sense or is not possible to provide that provision in one school, they can work together in order to ensure that that provision is available.
The key point here, as we think about education, health and care plans, is how we move to a system where children will not need an education, health and care plan to get support in the first place. Although, to be clear, education, health and care plans will remain for children with complex needs, they will be based on evidence-driven, expert-determined, specialist provision packages, which will enable better and more effective commissioning by local authorities of the provision that is most likely to provide support for children. They will back up the education, health and care plans, which will remain for those children with complex needs.
We are clear that we need to transform the system before we change the EHCP system. That is why we have been clear that no child will have their EHCP renewed before 2028-29 and that it will be only those children who are currently in year 2 or below, who will come to the end of their primary, at which point it would seem appropriate to review their education, health and care plan. Many of them may well continue with that plan; for others, the transformed system and the development of individual support plans for every child with special educational needs may provide a better opportunity at that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, is right. We need to train people and teachers in order to be able to deliver the inclusive education that is at the heart of this reform. That is why we have already announced the £200 million additional support for every teacher and educator, from early years through to colleges, to get training in special educational needs and the type of teaching required to support children and young people. That is why we will make additional support and practitioners available in early years to help to identify those children who need additional support, and it is why we will invest in research to find the most effective ways of doing that throughout the system.
To conclude, our ambition is clear: to build an education system that enables every child, wherever they live and whatever their needs, to achieve and to thrive. These reforms will deliver earlier support, stronger inclusion, broader opportunities and higher standards for all. They are shaped by parents, grounded in evidence and backed by significant investment. Most importantly, they place children at the heart of every decision that we make. Working together, we can create a system that is fairer, more ambitious and fit for the future. That is how we will ensure that every child can achieve and thrive.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, I know from my work as an MP how sensitive this issue is and how important it is to families. I used to represent a constituency that the Minister will know very well.
There are concerns that we should not ignore. A number of eminent clinicians and psychiatrists are now raising concerns that the expansion of diagnostic labels to conditions such as autism and ADHD is causing children with the most severe and complex needs to be overlooked. Given that one in three EHCPs is now given for autism and that the number of children overall with SEN is rising, does the Minister think there is any validity in these concerns? If she does, will she look at it? What is the response? Will the Fonagy review look at this issue specifically as well?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that I know that constituency very well, having proudly represented it for 13 years—although I am afraid that the history of Worcestershire’s approach to special educational needs has not always been as effective as we would want it to be. There is a challenge to be made to local authorities to ensure that they are stepping up to the mark, given the considerable additional investment that we are putting into the system.
On the point about diagnostic labels, the important thing is that we should not be waiting for a child to receive a label to determine whether they have needs that need to be met, both through more inclusive mainstream teaching and through additional support being provided within schools. Even when we get to the specialist provision packages, they will be determined not by labels but by the needs that children have in order to make progress.
On the point about overdiagnosis, we need to be careful. The Secretary of State has been clear about that. He has commissioned further research into the nature of the diagnosis, particularly in the areas of mental health and other learning difficulties. That is an appropriate thing to have done.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will agree that great teaching is vital to great schools and great childhoods. We both shared the pleasure of working at the chalkface for many years. What will the Government do in the months and years ahead to ensure that great teachers stay in the profession and that they themselves achieve and thrive?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right—and also about the joy that teaching brought to us both. That is why, alongside the White Paper, we published the implementation plan for delivering an additional 6,500 specialist teachers in our secondary schools and colleges. It is why, through the already improved pay for teachers, we are providing incentives for them to stay; why we are continuing to look at the working conditions that teachers operate under; and why, for example, the White Paper extends maternity pay for teachers from a pretty low base. Using all those things, and the support for teachers to do the job that they love even better, we are already seeing some progress in keeping more teachers in the classroom. We will continue to ensure that we focus on that.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome this document. It is very important and ambitious, but it is not without risk. The way in which the Government have consulted on it—and, in a way, taken their time—gives us the best possible chance of making a success of it. I hope that is the case.
I have two questions, which I hope the Minister can address. First, on the extra money going into the system to support SEND, I very much welcome the work that the Government plan to do on a new formula for supporting children from disadvantage. Will the way the SEND money goes into schools be part of that review and go in with money in the normal way, or will it take a different route? Will the details of that be announced? Secondly, I note that the White Paper allows local authorities to set up trusts. There is a quirky sentence, I think in chapter 5, which says that these local authority trusts will not be allowed to intervene or get involved in the day-to-day running of the school. That is not my impression of what happens with trusts at the moment. Will the rules that surround a local authority-led trust be exactly the same as the rules that surround others, or will they be slightly different, as this seems to indicate?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is right that the White Paper proposes a different approach to how we fund disadvantage, recognising that a “yes or no”, free school meals analysis of whether somebody is disadvantaged does not really get to the heart of the nature of that disadvantage. We will consult on that in relation to the money that schools receive for the pupil premium and for the disadvantage factors within the national funding formula, some of which would relate to children with SEND but is not specifically about SEND. The £4 billion additional funding for SEND will be allocated in the way I outlined in my first answer.
On the point about local authority trusts, it is the objective of the White Paper for all schools to be part of a trust. We are clear that, in some cases, there may not be existing trusts that could take on a school. For that reason we will also allow local authorities to set up trusts, but it is not the intention to recreate local authorities through trust provision. That is the reason for the particular arrangements for local authority trusts.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government. As a teacher, I think this is an amazing document and I look forward to talking about it a lot more. Something I particularly love about it is the high expectation of families. A question that comes to me—one of many—is that it talks about experts at hand, wrapping professionals around mainstream settings. I love the fact that the schools are becoming the experts, but it is pretty light on detail. Can the Minister be a little more specific about how this is going to happen?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am glad that the noble Lord recognises the emphasis on families and the relationship between schools and parents. An important element of the White Paper recognises, as I know the noble Lord does from his teaching career, that although teachers make a phenomenal difference to how children succeed, many other factors outside schools also impact on that. That is why this builds on a range of other activities, including those to support children to arrive at school ready to learn and our efforts to tackle child poverty, and brings stronger expectations on schools to ensure that they develop better home-school agreements and communicate consistently.
On the point about experts at hand, this is where I was talking about the additional funding that will enable some of those experts who, I am afraid, are currently spending too much time carrying out assessments or are in excellent special schools but are not able to offer that expertise out to schools, to develop it. Yes, there is work to be done on the design of how that happens, but this is considerable investment to deliver an average of 160 days to secondary schools precisely to get that support to children without them having to go through the torturous process of getting an education, health and care plan.
Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking all the officials involved in producing this very ambitious White Paper and crediting Ministers for their determination to tackle this very difficult issue. I wholeheartedly support their emphasis on early intervention.
The Minister very helpfully set out the plans for the £4 billion of spending that I understand is coming from the department’s existing spending review settlement over the next three years. I wonder whether she could also confirm—or correct me if I am wrong—that the Treasury is providing an additional £3.5 billion in 2028-29 as a one-off payment. Is this funding earmarked to cover the projected £6 billion of deficits that the OBR set out? I would be grateful if she could clarify that for me and tell me if I have misunderstood.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The £4 billion is additional funding over the next three years. The £6 billion that the OBR identified was based on the premise of an unreformed system. That the system is being reformed means that, by the time we get to 2028-29 and 2029-30, we will be operating in a very different system. As part of the local government settlement, we have also begun the process of writing off and taking over responsibility for the money that local authorities have built up from overspending on special educational needs in recent years. Those two things are separate.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I declare an interest in that my diocese has more than 190 Church schools and we educate around 60,000 children, in the total roll across them. The Church of England has already officially welcomed the White Paper and these Benches echo that this evening.
In Manchester, we have been looking at those points of transition—the transition from preschool into primary and from primary into secondary. In the past five or six years, the Bolton metropolitan area has had a project called Children Changing Places, because we recognise that, in those points of transition, children’s academic, social and spiritual development can go backwards, so we have been investing money into those points of transition. I note that both the White Paper and the Minister, in her replies this evening, referred to those points of transition. Might I tempt her to say a little more about how children can be enabled to manage those transitions without dropping back in their various levels of attainment?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate makes a very important point. As an example, we are working on how we can ensure that children are better prepared when they start school with an ambitious target to improve that, and investment in Best Start in Life and childcare to enable it.
Another key transition is from primary to secondary. Too often, key stage 3—the first three years in secondary—is not spent as effectively as it could be. Developing a new programme around the best practice for key stage 3 and really focusing on that will be part of the work of the RISE teams.
Another area where transition is often raised is in relation to SEND and children going from mainstream schools into colleges. We will make better provision for that and expect schools, at an earlier stage, to provide the information that colleges need to help children with special educational needs to thrive.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House of my education interests, in particular as chair of STEM Learning and of the E-ACT multi-academy trust. At some of our E-ACT primary schools in Bristol, we have been investing in speech and language therapy training for all our mainstream teachers in reception and early years. As a result, we are identifying more pupils with special educational needs but fewer are going on to have education, health and care plans. That gives me optimism in the basis for early intervention in these reforms and that it will work.
My question to my noble friend is around the seven specialist provision packages. Getting the detail right on those is crucial to gain the confidence of parents. How can we ensure that the consultation that the department is carrying out will properly include all stakeholders, including those with special educational needs and disabilities?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend has identified the benefits of early intervention, as he says. We need a clearer and more evidence-based approach to what is appropriate for children with complex needs, which is why we are creating a new set of nationally consistent specialist provision packages. They will be designed to set clear expectations of what high-quality specialist provision should offer. They will be developed by experts and tested with families to make sure that they work in real life and reflect the best evidence about what helps children thrive. As I said, they are not based on diagnoses; instead, they will focus on the support that a child needs to learn, communicate, feel regulated and take part in school life. This important work will also be reviewed by an independent national expert panel, which will help to keep them up to date.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, my question relates to the plans for a review of education, health and care plans after primary school from 2030. For children with a special school place from September 2029, there is a promise to keep their place, but their EHCP will be reviewed.
I am drawing on my experience as a governor at a primary school in London that had an autistic unit. When it was created, the assumption was that children would be there for a few years, would get support and would then be able to move into mainstream schooling. That was not the experience. As school years go forward, the curriculum becomes more complex and the social setting of a classroom becomes more complex, and children were not able to make that progression.
If there is to be a review of EHCPs at the end of primary, do the Government have any evidence or data on how many people with an EHCP will lose it? We have to pick up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about parents putting so much time, energy and money into securing these EHCPs and the fear of losing them. What will the benefit of the review be versus the cost to parents?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
First, to be clear, the majority of children who have an EHCP are in a special school. No child who is in a special school will need to leave a special school placement at any point. Secondly, on the point about bases in schools, part of the investment that we are putting in is to enable more opportunities within schools, to develop the type of bases that will provide specialist support for children but enable them to stay in mainstream schools in their communities, alongside their friends.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that these changes are desperately needed. The system is currently broken and we need to see change. I press the Minister on the issue of the pupil premium, a scheme designed for funding to follow disadvantaged young people. If any review is undertaken of how that money is allocated, can the Minister assure us that it will be done in a transparent way so that we know which people may lose out? Can the Minister commit to at least trying to protect funding for care-experienced young people when it comes to the pupil premium?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
This is not about how we cut the money that is available for disadvantage; this is about how we ensure that it is spent in a way that recognises that not all disadvantage is the same. We will be maintaining—in fact, we have increased—spending on the pupil premium. In relation to the overall review of the funding formula and the way in which we allocate the pupil premium, all of that will be subject to consultation, which will be starting this summer.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this initiative and the document—they are brilliant. However, I want to ask about the children who might have to attend a special school because of their particular needs and the challenges that they face. As somebody has already mentioned, one of the problems that local authorities face in the overspend on this concerns some of the special schools that we already have, which are profit-gouging. They are overcharging huge amounts of money for our most vulnerable children. We know that there are excellent special schools in the sector run by charities, social enterprises and, indeed, some of the private enterprises, but it is clear that those making vast profits need to be dealt with. I welcome the investment that has been proposed, but I would like to ask my noble friend the Minister about the transition that will happen. Will new powers be needed for local authorities and others, to make sure that we do not leave children and parents vulnerable because of the schools that are having to be dealt with?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. There is excellent work going on in our special schools, in the state sector and the independent sector. However, it cannot be right that there is a differential of three times between that which is charged in independent special schools and that which is charged in state special schools. Where that reflects highly specialised provision, that is legitimate, but where it is feeding private equity and, as my noble friend says, focused on profit, it is wholly wrong. That is why we will improve the regulation of independent special schools and, using the specialist packages that we are developing, create price bands indicating what local authorities will pay for children to go there. We can then be clearer that the money we are spending is delivering outcomes for children and not profits for private equity.
Baroness Debbonaire (Lab)
My Lords, my question has been partly answered. I thank my noble friend the Minister for bringing the Statement to the House and for the White Paper. I would like to press her a little more on that very topic. While it is absolutely right that these schools not be run for such profit-gouging as has been mentioned, how will needs be assessed in the case of children with very complex needs who are currently in specialist education that is well-run? I declare an interest, in that my nephew works with those children.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Children in special schools, either in the state sector or in independent special schools, will be there by virtue of an education, health and care plan. They will keep that education, health and care plan if they are in a special school. That will now be reinforced by clearer evidence and recognition of what the best practice would be for those children. Part of that evidence will be informed by the excellent work that is happening within special schools. If we can also get some of the expertise in special schools into mainstream schools through the £1.8 billion investment and the “expert at hand” provision then we really will have made sure that we are making the most of the excellent work that happens in our special schools.