Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(6 days, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 38V to 38X to Commons Amendment 38J, to which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 38Z12 to 38Z21.
“(3) If the first regulations have not been laid before Parliament before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (1A)—
(a) the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement explaining why, and
(b) before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which the statement under paragraph (a) is laid, the Secretary of State must lay the first regulations before Parliament.
(4) References in this section to the laying before Parliament of the first regulations are to the laying before Parliament of a draft of a statutory instrument containing the first regulations.”
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motion A1. On this group, we will debate amendments made in this House and in the other place relating to restrictions on social media use for children. Once again, before getting into the detail of these Motions and amendments, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Lloyd of Effra and myself I thank all noble Lords who have engaged so constructively, not just throughout the Bill’s passage but on these issues in particular. I am pleased to say that, thanks to the collaborative engagement of noble Lords across the House, I believe we have now reached a landing point that reflects our shared aims and that should command support on all sides.
I begin by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Nash. His commitment to the cause of children’s safety and well-being is profound. He has spoken passionately in the interests of children, parents and carers across this country, and I am grateful for his willingness to engage constructively with the Government on this critical issue. I also acknowledge the many noble Lords across the House who have shared their expertise and passion throughout this debate. The sincerity with which noble Lords have advanced their argument has been evident throughout and it has materially shaped the Government’s approach as we look beyond the consultation.
Good legislation is very often the product of exactly this kind of dialogue. The Government’s power now reflects the commitments we have made repeatedly in this House: it is a question of how we act, not if we act. Following the consultation, the Secretary of State now must, rather than may, use this power. To reiterate what my honourable friend Minister Bailey said in the other place yesterday,
“the status quo cannot continue. We are consulting on the mechanism, which is the right thing to do, but we are clear that under any outcome we will impose some form of age or functionality”
restrictions
“for children under 16. I can also confirm that consideration of restrictions such as curfews will be in addition to that, not instead of it. As the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has said, we are focused on addictive features, harmful algorithmically-driven content and features such as stranger pairing, which we know can be most damaging to children’s safety and privacy”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/4/26; col. 699.]
Recognising our shared determination for the quickest possible action, the Government have further tightened the timeframe for its delivery: a three-month progress report, followed by a 12-month timeline for making regulations, with the possibility of a single six-month extension, to be used only in exceptional circumstances. In recognition of the concerns about harmful and addictive design, we have further specified that the Secretary of State must have due regard to such features when making future regulations.
This is a serious and responsible approach. It preserves the integrity of the consultation, which has now received more than 55,000 responses from parents, children and those with direct experience of these harms. It also responds, rightly, to the concern that has animated much of the debate in this House: that children cannot wait, and that government must be held to a clear and demanding timetable.
I hope the House will recognise this for what it is: a collective effort from Parliament and government on one of the most important issues facing children today. The House has pressed, rightly, for urgency. The Government have maintained, rightly, that we must do this in a way that allows decisions to be informed by the consultation.
Motion A1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would amend the Government’s regulation-making power by requiring the Secretary of State to have further due regard to Ofcom’s codes of practice and the Information Commissioner’s children’s code, as well as specific risk factors such as “contact from strangers” and “loss of privacy”. It would also require due regard where representations from the general public are received in relation to a child facing
“imminent danger arising from their contact with an internet service”.
The Motion also proposes that the review of Ofcom’s enforcement powers is brought forward and tightens the timelines further, specifically that regulations must be made only six months after the three-month progress report, as well as shortening the potential extension period from six months to three months.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his continued commitment to child safety and rights. The Government share his determination to ensure the robust and urgent protection of children online. The noble Lord highlights many areas on which the Government have sought views through their consultation. While we recognise that these factors are important, prescribing an extensive list of specific “due regard” requirements, as the Motion does, is unnecessary and risks creating too much rigidity, reducing the flexibility the Secretary of State needs to respond to harms.
The consultation also makes it clear that the Online Safety Act will remain the foundation of our work on online safety; it forms a strong baseline from which this Government can build. I can reassure the noble Lord that the Online Safety Act’s statutory review will consider the effectiveness Ofcom’s enforcement powers, which are currently being manifested through 100 enforcement investigations that are currently under way. Introducing a review before all the duties have come into effect would risk being incomplete and ineffective.
On the timeline for action that we have discussed in this House over recent days, this Government have already gone a long way in ensuring that regulations are brought forward as quickly as possible, following the consultation. As I have said throughout, we will act as quickly as possible, and the DSIT Secretary of State has set out an ambition to make real progress on the regulations by the end of the year. Given all of this, I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, not to press his Motion.
This Government have made clear our intention to Act, and I know that many across both Houses will follow the outcomes of the consultation with great interest. It is in all of our interests to agree the Government’s Motion today, so we can start the important work of preparing to act on the consultation and keep children safe online.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I start where the Minister started, by acknowledging the work of my noble friend Lord Nash, who has led an incredibly effective campaign, which has been driven not by any political motives but by three things: first, wanting to do right by all children; secondly, having listened to the pain and the passion, as many of us have, of those parents who have lost their children, those who are worrying about their children and those whose children have been deeply harmed by social media; thirdly, by the weight of evidence from not just those parents but health professionals, police and law enforcement, and teachers.
Parents around the country are celebrating the Government’s decision to commit to act with the focus, as my noble friend said, on harmful and addictive features and algorithms and the ability to meet strangers online. It is my noble friend, his team and his co-signatories who are behind that change, and we are all really grateful to them for that.
But, as we have heard this afternoon, the work to get this right is only just beginning. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, wants to get things a bit more right this afternoon with his Motion A1, but these issues were debated yesterday, and now is not the time to revisit them. But the Government will benefit—whether they want to or not—from the expertise in this House, as we have heard; from my noble friend’s drive and focus; and from the experience and insight of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron; from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones; and, sadly for not much longer, from the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, who will be much missed on these issues.
I also acknowledge the courage of those Labour Peers who have supported my noble friend’s campaign, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, but also the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, who have all spoken out. We all know in this House how difficult that is to do. When we think about the impact that this change, if well implemented, will have on our children in future, we are all reminded of the extraordinary privilege that we hold to sit here and be part of shaping that change.
This has been a long Bill. I think there were around 700 amendments in Committee stage and many more thereafter. I could not have played my part in that without the wonderful campaigners, including, of course, the bereaved parents—especially Ellen Roome, who has been extraordinarily generous with her time—the experts and all the charities who have supported me on everything, including children deprived of their liberty, children who are not in school, free school policies, and, of course, social media and smartphones. I cannot thank them all enough. They brought to life the reality of the policy choices that the Government are making.
I would like to pause a moment and remind the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that, when he talks about the Conservatives bailing out at the last minute, it was the Liberal Democrats who bailed out all of 24 hours ago at the very last minute on a situation that would have clarified today the position of smartphones in schools and those schools that have “not seen, not heard” policies. Ironically, we are going to have to wait roughly 21 months as a result of their decision to move from supporting and signing an amendment to, as the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, said yesterday, preparing to vote against us on it. I ask the noble Lord perhaps to reflect on that.
But the Government have made a commitment that children should have no access to smartphones. When I met the Minister in the other place yesterday, she reassured me that the head teacher who spoke on the radio just after our debate last week and said that putting this guidance on a statutory footing would make no difference in her school, because they had had a ban since 2023 and children had phones switched off in their pockets and in their bags, would think again and would understand that was no longer appropriate. Given the evidence from many people at the Education Select Committee this morning, I press the Minister to confirm that she agrees with her colleague in the other place that that school will no longer think that policy is acceptable. The Government have committed to addressing this no later than September 2027, for which I am genuinely grateful, but my guess is we will need to address it sooner than that.
In closing, I am grateful for the steadfast support of the co-signatories to my very many amendments across the Bill, including my noble friends Lady O’Neill, Lady Spielman, Lord Agnew and, of course, Lord Nash. I would particularly like to call out the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who has been the most stalwart of stalwarts and has supported our proceedings with his own charm, expertise and insight from start to finish, which is quite a marathon. I have had fantastic and skilled and long-suffering support from the Public Bill Office and from an amazing team of special advisers and researchers in Annabelle Eyre, Henry Mitson, Dan Cohen and, for part of the Bill, Beatrice Hughes.
I would like to wish the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, a well-earned rest at the end of the Bill. I have some sense of how many hours and how many plates they have been spinning respectively. For my part, I am going to be stepping down from the Front Bench now that the Bill is completing its passage—anyone would think I was sad to go—but I genuinely look forward to working across the House on the special educational needs and disabilities legislation when it comes and more. Our role is making sure that legislation works in practice; I have tried to do this in this Bill, and I will try to do it in the future.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate today and during the whole of the Bill’s passage. First, on the specifics, as I set out earlier, the Government hope that today we are able to reach an agreement on the Government’s Motion; it represents an effective compromise that recognises the shared desire across the Government and both Houses that we must act quickly to protect our children’s online well-being.
On that point, and perhaps taking up the challenge of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, as my honourable friend said yesterday in the Commons, and in fact as we have said throughout discussions on these issues, we have been clear that the status quo cannot continue. The Government were clear when they launched their consultation that this was not about whether we take action, but rather what we do. We are consulting on the mechanism and that is the right thing to do. But we are clear—and this is the result of some of the very important engagement that has gone on—that, under any outcome, we will impose some form of age or functionality restrictions for children under 16. As I said earlier, I can confirm that consideration of restrictions such as curfews will be in addition to these restrictions not instead of them. This is a reasonable approach for this House, and in fact for both Houses, to take—to recognise the importance of the consultation and to recognise the strength of feeling as represented in these two Houses about the need to take action.
I also hear some of the other comments around the need for enforcement. I am sure that some of the debate will continue, and that is probably for other days and possibly even other bits of legislation.
Ballet
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(6 days, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord John of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare an interest as a member of the president’s circle of the Central School of Ballet.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government recognise the important contribution of the performing arts, including classical ballet. We continue to support degree-level provision of these subjects through the student finance system and though direct funding for providers via the strategic priorities grant. That includes per-student funding for performing arts courses, the rates for which were maintained this academic year, and direct funding of £57.4 million for 20 world-leading specialist providers, including 12 creative and performing arts institutions.
Lord John of Southwark (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her Answer. Whatever Timothée Chalamet may say, people care about ballet. The Central School of Ballet, almost uniquely as a degree-awarding classical ballet school, has faced financial uncertainty in recent years, with funding regimes changed and the gap between tuition fees of £9,250 and the costs of £24,000 per student causing real stress. The school awaits the delayed consultation on the strategic priorities grant this autumn, but is concerned that it may not know until well into 2027 what the new funding landscape will look like for 2027-28. Can my noble friend give any reassurance that there will be a prompt response to the consultation and that funding will more closely reflect the costs of specialist providers such as the Central School of Ballet? Can I invite her to visit the school to see the exceptional work of the students and staff there?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I know that my noble friend, as he has already identified, is a very strong supporter of the Central School of Ballet and the excellent work that it clearly does. The Government recognise the valuable contribution made by the Central School of Ballet, which is why it has benefited from £2.2 million in specialist funding from 2022 to the current academic year. I also recognise the point made by my noble friend about the need for certainty. We remain committed to ensuring that SPG funding supports students and aligns with the industrial strategy, including the creative and performing arts. Reform of the SPG is ongoing ahead of 2027-28, including on specialist funding, but we will ensure that there is an opportunity for providers to feed back on our proposals for reform.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland has offered a BA degree course in modern ballet since 2009. However, British students from outwith Scotland are financially disadvantaged as the RCS is not recognised as one of the dance centres for advanced training, CATs, probably because there was no such dance provision at this level in Scotland when the CATs scheme began. In contrast, such students at St Mary’s Music School in Edinburgh are funded by the UK Government. Will the Minister commit to reviewing the status of the RCS as a dance CAT provider so that talented dancers from England, Wales and Northern Ireland are on a par with Scottish students at this globally recognised institution in performing arts education?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I have to confess to not being an expert on the arrangements for the conservatoire, although it is the case that where a student is studying a degree in dance, they are eligible for student funding in the normal way that a student would be. If the noble Baroness sends me further details about whether she thinks that covers the point she is making, I will be happy to look at it.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord John, for raising the question of classical ballet. As the Minister knows, it is highly specialist, highly intensive and time critical so that a dancer can be internationally job ready at age 18. I take the opportunity to ask her about the music and dance scheme, which—as she knows and as we have heard so often—is a vital talent pipeline that ensures that young talent, whatever their background, can fulfil their potential. I am very grateful to the Minister and to Georgia Gould for repeatedly confirming the Government’s support for the scheme, but is she aware that the lack of clarity on long-term funding is now making it very difficult for schools to convince parents to sign up to a multiyear training programme, which is essential to success? Have there been any conversations on the ongoing questions of VAT, whether the exemption for MDS students will remain and, indeed, multiyear funding agreements for these vital institutions?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is very good to be facing questions today from at least two excellent dancers—that is no slight on my noble friend. The noble Baroness raises, as have other noble Lords, the question of certainty around the music and dance scheme, which, as she says, the Government have consistently committed to as we commit to revitalising and widening access to arts education. We continue to fund that scheme, providing bursaries to more than 2,000 students. This means that means-tested, targeted support for students from lower-income families can continue. Funding for the academic year 2026-27 onward will be announced in due course. Although it has not been the case for some time that there have been multiyear settlements, I understand the noble Baroness’s point about certainty for students who are starting on courses and their families.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I confess that I had to do compulsory ballet when I was a little, round, fat six year-old, so I am not in the elite. As well as the Central School of Ballet, a great number of small, specialist performing arts providers, highly regarded internationally, send their overseas students there. But, of course, providing these courses and keeping a pipeline of high-level tutors is more expensive than for many other subjects, so can the Minister assure us that this will be taken into account when the funding is being considered?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Yes. That is the reason why, as part of the strategic priorities grant, 12 of the 20 small, specialist providers are the type of high-quality performing arts providers that the noble Baroness was talking about. Those 20 providers are being supported in this financial year by £57.4 million precisely because of the point that she has made: they are small, highly specialised and internationally recognised. They therefore have costs that need to be particularly recognised, which is what has happened through the strategic priorities grant.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, I am here to reset the balance on exceptional ballet talent. I did one term of ballet, aged four, at the end of which I got a report that said, “Diana has no natural talent”. That report, unlike many others, has stayed with me to this day. I want to press the Minister, if I may. She has spoken about the department’s long-term commitment to the music and dance scheme, but can she say a little more about the adequacy of funding levels for the scheme, to ensure access for children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is definitely not right that the noble Baroness has no talents. Anybody who saw me on “Strictly” will know the extent of my dance talents. Anyway, I reiterate that the Government have given support to the music and dance scheme. It will provide generous support to help students access specialist music and dance education and training, with £36 million committed for this year. As the noble Baronesses have said, the aim of the scheme is to identify and assist children with exceptional potential, regardless of their personal and financial circumstances, to benefit from world-class specialist training. That is very much in line with the Government’s ambition to support dance and the performing arts, both in education and more widely, and we will endeavour to give certainty about next year’s funding for that as soon as possible.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot really compete with what has been said about dance specialisation because I ceased my dance classes at three. I want to expand a little on the music and dance scheme in schools, and I have raised this with my noble friend the Minister before. She knows that they are calling for the restoration of three-year settlements and an increase in funding, which has been frozen or increased by under inflation since 2011. It is so difficult for the schools when the budgets are not finalised, or are finalised so late, because schools are having to take a gamble on what their funding will be, and they can lose prospective students who will not gamble on taking up a place with that uncertainty. Can my noble friend give us another assurance about the future of this scheme and the level of its funding?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend gives me the opportunity to say, yet again, that through both the music and dance scheme and the dance and drama awards for students studying specific level 5 performing arts qualifications, the Government have maintained their support for those students to ensure that access is widened. I hear the point that my noble friend and others have made about certainty of funding. It is not an excuse, but there has not been multiyear funding for the music and dance scheme since 2020. I quite understand why schools want that longer-term funding certainty. We will continue to do what we can to provide timely—and, if possible in the future, multiyear—funding arrangements, but at the moment that has not been possible.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 38V to 38X to Commons Amendment 38J, to which the Commons have disagreed, and do propose Amendments 38Z1 to 38Z9 to Commons Amendments 38J and 38K in lieu of Amendments 38V to 38X—
“(3) If the first regulations have not been laid before Parliament before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (1A)—
(a) the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement explaining why, and
(b) before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which the statement under paragraph (a) is laid, the Secretary of State must lay the first regulations before Parliament.
(4) References in this section to the laying before Parliament of the first regulations are to the laying before Parliament of a draft of a statutory instrument containing the first regulations.”
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motions A1, A2, B, C and C1. With this group, we are debating amendments made in this House and the other place relating to a social media ban for under-16s, mobile phones in schools, and school admissions. Before getting into the details of the Motions and amendments before us, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Lloyd of Effra and myself, I thank all noble Lords who have engaged with us, ministerial colleagues and departmental officials throughout the Bill’s passage, and particularly during this rather fast-paced bit of ping-pong that we are now engaged in.
We are, hopefully, at the very end of this parliamentary Session and today brings us to the third round of ping-pong on this important Bill. That is beyond the point that the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord True, has generally seen as the juncture at which the unelected House should give way to the House of Commons. Noble Lords will be familiar with my history as a Member of and ministerial officeholder in the other place. That House has now spoken clearly on the matters before us on multiple occasions, endorsing the Government’s alternative proposals. I recognise, however, now that I am a Member of this place, that perhaps one advantage of noble Lords is their ability to scrutinise in detail and to push successfully for revision of government proposals. We have seen that throughout the course of consideration of this Bill. For example, for each of the issues that we are debating again this afternoon, the Government have recognised the strength of feeling expressed both here and in the other place, and we have responded on each one.
I will set out the important package of amendments that the Government have tabled to better protect children online. Once again, I am grateful for the constructive debate and committed engagement of noble Lords on this. In light of these discussions, we have strengthened our position, responding directly to your Lordships’ concerns about urgency, scope and parliamentary scrutiny. To put beyond any doubt that this Government will act in a way that responds to the concerns of your Lordships’ House, we have now gone further still. Under my Motion, we are placing a clear statutory requirement that the Secretary of State “must”, rather than “may”, act following the consultation. This removes any question of whether action will follow, while rightly allowing the detail of that action to be shaped by the evidence and by those most affected: the parents and children who have already responded to the consultation in their thousands.
The Government have now also committed to a timeline in the Bill. I am aware that there has been some commentary on this proposed timeline over the weekend, and I will therefore set out our position clearly to inform this debate. This Government are committed to moving as quickly as possible on this important issue. The timeline set out in our power is a ceiling, not a target. I recognise that there are particular concerns regarding the inclusion of an option for the Secretary of State to further extend the timeline. To be clear, this extension would be deployed only in exceptional unforeseen circumstances that prevent the Government meeting the original deadline. This is not a means of delaying regulation but a measure of last resort, to be used only if absolutely necessary. Noble Lords should therefore think of the implementation timescale as 24 months at the outside, rather than any longer, and remain mindful of my earlier remarks about this being a ceiling, not a target.
We have also listened carefully to concerns about harmful and potentially addictive design features. As noble Lords will know, the consultation seeks views on restrictions to addictive features and functionalities, and we have therefore tabled a further amendment specifically requiring the Secretary of State to have due regard to such features when deciding how to exercise the power, ensuring that these risks are properly addressed in the legislation.
I hope noble Lords will recognise that, taken together, these changes demonstrate the Government’s determination to proceed with this work and to do so in a manner that meets the concerns raised across both Houses. They provide certainty of action, a clear timetable and stronger recognition of harmful and addictive design. This is a balanced, evidence-led approach that protects children now and remains fit for the digital challenges ahead. I hope noble Lords will recognise this as a credible and responsible landing point, and support the Government’s amendment to deliver strong, effective and decisive action.
Motion A1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nash, insists on the same amendment that was brought to the House last week and would amend government Amendment 38J. It would require the Secretary of State to restrict under-16s from accessing user-to-user services or to restrict specific features or functionalities when making these regulations. I thank the noble Lord and his supporters again for their sustained focus on these vital issues. Protecting children online is not a point of difference between us; it is a shared priority that this Government are determined to deliver on. I welcome the progress already made and the constructive way in which the noble Lord’s amendment now reflects the Government’s approach. However, the government consultation and the legislative means in the Government’s amendment are the most responsible way to get this right, ensuring effective outcomes for children that will last.
The noble Lord’s amendment also specifies the age of 16 for restrictions. We cannot place an under-16 age limit in the Bill; doing so would require the Government to act before the evidence-gathering process is complete and would pre-empt the consultation. The consultation has already received more than 55,000 responses, demonstrating the public’s desire to shape the Government’s approach—and it is right that we listen to them. We recognise that many restrictions may be appropriate for age 16; there may also be specific interventions better suited for those over 16. Many Members of this House have rightly recognised that children of different ages interact with these services differently, which is why the government power now specifically acknowledges this.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, in starting, I too recognise the contribution of my noble friend Lord Hacking. But I have to say, as a former Chief Whip in the other place, I am not quite of the same view that rebelling against your party is a sign of conscience. Nevertheless, I thank him for his service and comradeship to me since I have been in this House.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am sure the noble Lord will remain busy even if he is not here. I look forward to hearing his views from afar, as I have heard them from behind me over recent years.
I turn now to Lords Amendments 38V and 38X. This Government have listened carefully to the concerns raised in both Houses and acted decisively to directly address them. I understand from today’s debate that there is a view among noble Lords that the Government may not yet have gone far enough. But it is of course important to remember that it is the passing of this Bill that will ensure that the progress that has been made will be on the statute book.
We are absolutely committed to protecting children online and doing it the right way. Throughout the whole Bill, that has involved discussion, consultation and engagement, including, earlier in its passage, with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, whom I had the pleasure of meeting on a range of issues, which we then looked at in detail in Committee.
Noble Lords have told us that the progress we need to make on this cannot be optional. We agree—that is why we have now put in the Bill the statutory requirement that the Secretary of State “must”, rather than “may”, act following the outcomes of the consultation. Please be reassured that, due to that change, action will follow. It must follow.
Your Lordships’ House also told us that this must happen at pace. That is why we have committed in legislation to a clear timeline. The six-month progress report must set out when regulations will be made. I will come back to that timing point in a moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Nash, reiterated his demand that the age of 16 is included on the face of the legislation. Again, I know there is not necessarily a consensus on whether this is the right thing to do, even among those who are not satisfied with how far the Government have gone already. I think the reason is that it pre-empts the outcome of our consultation, which seeks views on what restrictions on what features and at what age would be best.
We want to be confident that what we introduce works for all children, including the most vulnerable. That is why we are not waiting; we are testing options now, taking evidence from families, and, as I have said, we are putting the legislative powers in place to act quickly once the consultation closes. Our amendment allows for this outcome, but it also allows for a range of other outcomes, including, as I suggested earlier, for example, restricting some of the most harmful functionalities for children older than 16.
We rightly heard noble Lords’ concerns around the harmful and potentially addictive nature of many services. That is exactly why this is explicitly addressed in the consultation. However, in legislation, we have to be a little bit careful about the terms we use. Addiction, for example, is a medical term. A specific diagnosis of social media addiction has not been medically recognised and is a contested concept. If we are not careful, using this term in the legislation is likely to create a high bar for the exercise of the power to tackle the problem of addictive design as it is colloquially understood. Our drafting is intended to specifically capture features which might cause children to overuse services in a risky or harmful way. The Secretary of State must have due regard to these features in exercising the power.
We have gone even further, with a legislative commitment that the Secretary of State must now have regard to how services and features could impact children’s usage of services, and the potential harms excessive use might cause. Collectively, these changes represent a significant strengthening of the Government’s position. They provide certainty of action, urgency and stronger safeguards for children. I urge noble Lords to recognise how far we have gone and to support the government amendments.
We particularly recognise the concerns that have been voiced during this debate and more widely regarding the Government’s intended timescales. I repeat that the power to extend is designed to cover exceptional circumstances only, rather than being a means of delay. Nevertheless, we have heard the arguments this afternoon and I am sure that my colleagues in the Commons will have more to say on timings when the Bill returns to the other place this evening. I am sure everybody will have noted the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, to continue with his constructive engagement with Ministers on that and other issues.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for recognising the progress that we have made on admissions and the published admissions numbers. I hope and believe that we can now be confident that these changes will help to ensure that school admission numbers give all parents a choice of high-quality local school places. That is the objective that we share.
On Amendment 106 in relation to mobile phones, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for recognising the progress that we have made on this, the clarity of the Government’s position that pupils should not have access to their mobile phones during the school day and the recognition of the assurances that my honourable friend Minister Bailey was able to give around the strengthening of the guidance and the enforcement support that we will now put in place.
I recognise the point made by the noble Baroness about the behaviour survey being a good way to measure the impact of the changes the Government have already made. For that reason, I am able to say to the noble Baroness that we can commit to looking at the behaviour survey, seeing the impacts and using that to make any necessary revisions to the guidance by September 2027.
With those assurances, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support the Government given the considerable movement that I think we have made in a range of areas.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 102, in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 102J to 102M.
“(4A) In making a determination under subsection (3) or (4), the adjudicator must take into account the potential impact of the determination on—
(a) the quality of education provided at—
(i) the school in question, and
(ii) other schools within the relevant area, and
(b) the ability to give effect to parental preference for—
(i) the school in question, and
(ii) other schools within the relevant area.
(4B) Before determining an admission number under subsection (3) or (4) that is lower than the admission number specified in the admission arrangements to which the objection or reference relates, the adjudicator must consult and have regard to the views of the following persons about alternatives to lowering the admission number—
(a) the local authority for each school within the relevant area,
(b) the admission authority for the school in question, if different from the local authority for the school, and
(c) the Secretary of State.”
““relevant area”, in relation to a school, has the same meaning as in section 88F (see subsection (4) of that section).”
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 106, in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 106G to 106J.
“Guidance on use of mobile phones etc in schools in England
(1) In Part 10 of the Education Act 1996, after Chapter 2 insert—
“CHAPTER 2A
GUIDANCE ON MOBILE PHONES ETC: SCHOOLS IN ENGLAND
550C Guidance on use of mobile phones etc in schools in England
(1) The appropriate person for a school in England must have regard to guidance described in subsection (2) in exercising functions in relation to the conduct of the school.
(2) The guidance referred to in subsection (1) is guidance issued from time to time by the Secretary of State about registered pupils at schools having mobile phones and other personal interactive communication devices with them, and using them—
(a) during school hours, and
(b) on school premises.
(3) Subsections (4) to (6) apply for the purposes of this section.
(4) “Appropriate person” means—
(a) for the following kinds of school, the head teacher—
(i) a community, foundation or voluntary school;
(ii) a community or foundation special school;
(iii) a maintained nursery school;
(iv) a pupil referral unit;
(v) a school approved by the Secretary of State under section 342 (approval of non-maintained special schools);
(b) for any other kind of school, the proprietor.
(5) “School hours”, in relation to a school, means any time between the start of the first school session on a school day and the end of the last school session on the same day.
(6) References to mobile phones and other personal interactive communication devices do not include references to devices provided by or on behalf of the appropriate person for a school for use by registered pupils.”
(2) In section 89 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (determination by head teacher of behaviour policy), after subsection (6) insert—
“(7) If a notification or guidance given under section 88(2)(b) to the head teacher of a relevant school in England is inconsistent with guidance to which head teachers of relevant schools in England are required to have regard by section 550C of EA 1996 (guidance on use of mobile phones etc), the duty under subsection (2)(b) does not apply to the extent of the inconsistency.””
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.
Motion C1 not moved.
Motion C agreed.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(2 weeks 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.
Surrey County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days 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
Masculinity and Misogyny in Schools
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days 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.
Warwickshire County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days 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.
Buckinghamshire Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days 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
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts(1 month, 1 week 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)