Masculinity and Misogyny in Schools

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I said 6%.

[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.

Motion agreed.

Surrey County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[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

Motion agreed.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[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.

Motion B agreed.

Moved by

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 102, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 102A.

102A: Because the Amendment imposes inappropriate restrictions on the scope of the adjudicator’s powers to determine school admission numbers under clause 56 and the clause already provides for regulations to make provision about the matters the adjudicator must consider when making a determination about a school’s admission number.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend has already spoken to Motion L. I beg to move.

Motion L1 (as an amendment to Motion L)

Further Education (Initial Teacher Training) Regulations 2026

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Further Education (Initial Teacher Training) Regulations 2026.

Relevant document: 50th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for their scrutiny of this instrument. These draft regulations were laid in Parliament on 22 January 2026.

As noble Lords will be aware, the quality of teaching is critical to securing the best outcomes for pupils, learners and students in all parts of our education system, from early years right through to adult education. In October last year, the post-16 education White Paper set out an ambitious vision for the future of our skills system in England. The further education sector is the driving engine of that vision. We must ensure that high-quality teaching is hard-wired into our colleges and training providers.

We are taking decisive steps now to improve and secure the quality of teacher training for the FE sector. Ensuring that there is an accessible, attractive and high-quality training offer for new teachers will help improve the recruitment and retention of teachers in the FE sector, contributing to the Government’s commitment to recruit an additional 6,500 teachers for our schools and colleges. It will also send a clear message about our focus on securing high and rising standards of teaching in our colleges.

This instrument marks an important step towards creating a regulated system of teacher training for FE, covering the full range of providers delivering relevant courses across the sector and based on clear, evidence-based quality standards. It dovetails with the focus on quality that comes with the new Ofsted inspection framework for initial teacher education, which will now encompass significantly more FE teacher training providers than it previously did.

For many years, successive Governments have focused efforts on securing standards of teacher training for our primary and secondary schools—with considerable success—but, until recently, that focus had not been extended to how well our FE teachers are being prepared. There is excellent practice in parts of the system, and regulation must not constrain or discourage innovation and excellence. However, there is too much inconsistency across the sector, and some deeply concerning examples of poor practice in FE teacher training have emerged in recent years. Trainees have not always been guaranteed a high-quality training experience that prepares them to be great FE teachers, and employers have not always been assured that teacher training courses are equipping new teachers with the skills and knowledge they will need.

The regulatory system created by these regulations will place new requirements on all providers of specified FE teacher training courses in England. This includes universities, colleges, training providers and any other organisations delivering such courses. These providers will be required: to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State on the curriculum content of FE teacher training programmes; to have regard to guidance on delivery standards for FE teacher training courses; to register with the Department for Education as a provider of FE teacher training courses; and to submit regular data and information to the Department for Education relating to any specified FE teacher training courses provided.

These measures are proportionate but significant in their intended impact. For the first time, we, employers and potential new teachers will have clear sight of what teacher training provision is being offered, where and by whom. Such transparency is a key ingredient of a quality-focused system. That focus will be enhanced further by requiring all providers of specified courses to have regard to clear, evidence-based standards on course delivery and curriculum content.

DfE officials have worked closely, over a sustained period of time, with stakeholders from the FE provider and teacher training sectors. There is widespread consensus that the approach we are pursuing will deliver a clear, positive dividend in driving up standards, while ensuring that providers continue to have the flexibility they need to exercise their own professional and expert judgment.

These measures have been shaped by public consultation, a formal call for evidence and sustained engagement with professionals from across the sector. I record my thanks to all those who have contributed their time and expertise to the process.

Particular thanks are due to the expert group convened by the Department for Education, chaired by Anna Dawe OBE, principal of Wigan and Leigh College, one of the first technical excellence colleges, which has played a pivotal role in advising on the evidence for high-quality content in FE teacher training. I beg to move.

Schools (Recording and Reporting of Seclusion and Restraint) (England) Regulations 2025

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Lords Chamber

New early intervention strategies are of course an excellent idea, but when done in conjunction with upholding the sometimes necessary use of seclusions and exclusions. We simply ask that the Minister and the department commit to revisit the incoming recording and reporting process that many people, not just noble Lords here, feel is poorly costed and has inadequate oversight. Can she then reassure your Lordships’ House that the Government accept that seclusions and exclusions are, regrettably, sometimes a necessary part of school life?

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

My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity today to respond to concerns raised by noble Lords and to clarify areas of misunderstanding, including in some of the analysis during this debate. The question of how schools use restrictive interventions, including physical restraint and seclusion, goes to the heart of how we keep children safe, support staff and uphold the trust of families. These interventions can have real and lasting effects, which is why this Government have taken such care in revising the Use of Reasonable Force guidance for schools and strengthening the framework around its use. Yet it is equally true that there will be moments, rare but critical, when the use of reasonable force or another restrictive intervention is both lawful and necessary to keep a child or those around them safe, and we cannot shy away from that reality.

In such circumstances, staff must be confident in what the law allows, clear on how to act safely and supported by leadership that builds strong partnerships with families, and provides parents with a clear and timely picture of their child’s experience. This sits at the heart of our wider approach of calm, caring and predictable environments supported by early, support-first intervention, as set out in our recently published schools White Paper. In doing so we ensure that every school and every classroom provides a safe, supportive place where every child, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, feels that they belong and can thrive.

It was with these principles in mind that we introduced new regulations requiring schools to record and report all incidents of seclusion and non-force-related restraint to parents, strengthening consistency and ensuring that parents are informed about significant events affecting their child. The consultation that we undertook early last year provided invaluable insight. While I understand the frustrations of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, some of the words that he used about the department’s approach to engaging with schools, professionals and trade unions—that is widespread in the work that we do—were not fair and were significantly overstated.

During the course of that consultation, we heard clear concerns from parents, Ofsted and the Equality and Human Rights Commission about inconsistency in the monitoring of seclusion compared with physical force. There was real concern that this could lead schools to view seclusion as somehow easier or safer. That is not a message that any of us would wish schools to take, and the updated guidance directly addresses that risk. The revised guidance and new legislation equip schools to develop clear and inclusive policies, ensuring that safeguarding sits at the centre of decisions about restrictive interventions. It places strong emphasis on early help, understanding what sits behind behaviour, and using prevention and de-escalation strategies wherever possible. But it also recognises that when an intervention is necessary, staff must feel supported and able to act appropriately, lawfully and safely.

Importantly, every decision must take account of the welfare and needs of all children, including those with SEND, ensuring that responses are proportionate and rooted in an understanding of children’s needs and experiences. From April 2026, schools will be legally required, under these regulations, to record and report each significant incident of force, seclusion or non-force-related restraint to parents as soon as possible.

On the point about seclusion raised by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, it is worth reminding ourselves of the definition of seclusion in this guidance. In these circumstances, we are talking about non-disciplinary interventions. I understand his concerns, which I share, about the need to ensure that teachers have the wherewithal and ability, through either suspension or other disciplinary measures, to maintain the calm classrooms that every child deserves. However, the seclusion covered in these regulations does not relate to those disciplinary areas.

On disciplinary provisions, the Government, in the most recent schools White Paper, came forward with proposals for how we can better handle, for example, internal suspensions. Those are not covered here. For clarity, seclusion here applies only where a pupil is prevented from leaving a space and is detained alone, other than as a disciplinary measure. That reflects the Equality and Human Rights Commission definition, which describes seclusion as the withdrawal of a pupil against their will and their confinement alone in a space they are not free to leave. In response to points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in some of his communication, to be clear, seclusion does not include brief voluntary timeout, agreed calming arrangements or the planned non disciplinary use of separation or sensory spaces to support a pupil to regulate their emotions.

Schools must record all incidents of seclusion and non-force-related restraint. They may choose to record additional information, but such measures should not be described as “seclusion”. On the extent to which this process can be used for school improvement, we expect schools to use the data they collect to review their approaches and reduce the need for restrictive interventions through early, support-first approaches. Greater transparency will of course build trust with families and reassure the wider public about how such interventions are used.

I recognise the concerns raised about the evidence base underpinning the impact assessment. There is currently no national dataset on seclusion or non-force restraint. Therefore, internal exclusions were used as a cautious proxy because no better evidence exists. This is an imperfect measure, and the frequency of these incidents will vary significantly between settings—for example, in many secondary schools they are rare. However, in the absence of more robust data, it was the only viable approach. It may also be helpful to clarify that the monetised analysis of the impact assessment focuses on independent schools. Under Better Regulation requirements, as a department we must quantify the impact of new duties on businesses, and independent schools fall within that definition. State-funded schools do not do so, and so are not included in that element of the assessment. That is not to say there will not be an impact on state-funded schools—I will come to what that might be in a moment —it is simply to say that the approach taken in the impact assessment was in line with the Government’s Better Regulation requirements for how impact assessments are put together.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others also raised concerns about the department’s estimate of the time it will take school staff to record incidents. Although the evidence base is limited, I reassure noble Lords that this estimate assumes that schools already have or will put in place efficient and streamlined record-keeping systems. Our contacts with schools suggest that is the case in very many cases, and many do so already as part of wider safeguarding responsibilities. Our guidance is designed to support schools rather than add unnecessary burden. It is worth emphasising that many schools, as I already suggested, rarely use force or restrictive interventions. This has been fully reflected in our assessment of burden.

Student Loans: Review

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the student loans regime.

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

My Lords, given the inherited fiscal situation, we are making tough but necessary decisions to protect both taxpayers and students. It is right that those who can afford to repay their student loans do so. The system remains heavily subsidised. Lower-earning graduates are always protected by the cancellation of any outstanding loan and interest at the end of their repayment term. The Government continuously review student finance to ensure that it remains fair, sustainable and supportive of students from all backgrounds.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I am grateful for that. At the moment, a student leaving with an average debt of £53,000 has to earn £66,000 per year just to cover the interest on the debt. The deputy leader of the Labour Party recently described that as “egregious”. The Budget made the situation even worse by freezing the thresholds for students from 2027. A month ago, the Chancellor described the current regime as “fair and reasonable”, but not a lot of people agreed. Does the noble Baroness think the leader of the Opposition might be on the right track by suggesting capping loans at RPI?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I know the noble Lord would not want the suggestion to be made that the level of debt impacts on the amount anybody repays in any given month, because, of course, that is wrong. As I have already identified, the majority of students do not repay the whole of their loan, so they already receive a considerable subsidy from the state. I am sure there are noble Lords in this House who feel slightly aggrieved about being accused, as the leader of the Opposition did, of presiding over a scam in developing the current plan 2 student loan system, but it is important that we maintain the protection for students and graduates that the student loan system creates while being open to thinking about how we can mitigate its burdens on students and those who are repaying their student finance.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of how the increasing burden of student debt will influence young people’s decisions not to go to university, particularly for young people in regions of the UK where average salaries are really low? Are we going back to a situation where attending university will be just for the wealthy?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

No we are not, and nor should we, which is why we have made increasing access and participation a major pillar of our reforms of higher education. Despite the student loan system, we have seen an increase in the numbers of young people going to university. We now need to close the gap between those who come from advantaged backgrounds and those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, which has stubbornly remained. The student finance system removes any upfront fees from students to ensure that anybody who could benefit from higher education can.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, the student finance system is broken. Students face soaring repayments that they never signed up for. May I suggest, for instance, that public sector workers—doctors, nurses, teachers, members of the Armed Forces, civil servants, and so on—who will never earn the eye-watering salaries of the private sector, have their loans written off after, say, 10 years of public service? Meanwhile, how about a complete revamp and building a cross-party consensus on what a fairer system would be?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

To be clear, once again, the level of debt does not determine the level of repayments that students make. To suggest that it does confuses and misleads those thinking about going to university. I take the point that has been made recently about the pressure of student loan repayments. As a Government, we have had to set priorities in the 18 months we have been in power. We have chosen to stabilise the finances of our universities, introduce maintenance grants, increase the maintenance support for students, take action to reduce the unacceptably high numbers of young people who are neither earning nor learning—let alone getting the chance to go to university—and reverse the decline in young people starting apprenticeships. That is a pretty fair set of priorities.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, in England alone, outstanding student debt now stands at £270 billion and is forecast to reach £500 billion by the late 2040s. With respect to the nation’s balance sheet, how much of this total debt do we realistically expect to be repaid? What, therefore, are the net liability implications for keeping to our fiscal rules?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As a Government, we recognise and support the public subsidy that the student finance scheme implies for students. For plan 2 full-time borrowers who started their courses in 2022-23, for example, we expect that only 32% of them will repay their loans in full. This is therefore a public subsidy for those individuals and for realising the broader public benefits that higher education brings, not only for those who have the opportunity to go through it but for society more broadly.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, I am glad to hear that my noble friend the Minister thinks that changes could be made to the system to make it fairer. However, does she agree that it is not sensible to think that there was a golden era when everybody went to university without worry? I went to university during a time when there were maintenance grants, but there was huge pressure in those times, particularly on people from lower incomes whose parents could not afford to put the top-ups in. We need to remember that when we consider the changes that need to be made. If she can make it fairer, that is good, but do not imagine that there was some previous time when everything was wonderful.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very important point. I went to university without a student loan, but I was part of only 14% of young people who were able to benefit from higher education. That figure now stands at more than 50%, and we need a student finance system that recognises that. I reiterate that the Government are making changes to student finance. We will reintroduce student grants and we are increasing maintenance loans for students. We are therefore opening up the opportunity for more students from lower-income backgrounds to get the benefits that higher education brings.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham put it so well, Rachel Reeves says that the student loan system is “fair and reasonable”; Lucy Powell, on the other hand, says that the system is “unfair” and “egregious”, while Bridget Phillipson says that it is not a priority for the Government. With three contradictory views on a review of student loans, is it any surprise to the Minister that, according to the latest Ipsos survey, over two-thirds of the country

“do not have confidence that the Government is running the country … properly, competently or seriously”?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I wonder whether the noble Earl has had the opportunity to discuss with some of his colleagues whether they believe that the system that they introduced is a scam. This is a system that was introduced by the previous Government. Plan 2 is no longer in operation for students starting today. Finally, if the leader of the Opposition is trying to suggest to students that they will repay less through a cap on interest, she would, of course, be misleading them, because that would not be true.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, the Sutton Trust, which has done wonderful work in this area, has shown that students who cannot afford to leave home do worse in their studies and throughout life. Will the Minister give student maintenance top priority and make it open to everybody, as it was in my time? I hope she will be brave enough not to shy away from the possible need to cut university places, have some mergers and make sure that we are not oversupplied with courses and universities that are not worth the money that students are paying.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Baroness that reducing the numbers of people who can benefit from higher education is the most effective way to address this issue, although I agree that we need to address the cost of living crisis that current students face. That is why we are increasing the support available through maintenance loans, and it is why this Government will reintroduce the maintenance grants cut by the previous Government.

Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how they plan to use the Post-16 education and skills white paper, published on 20 October 2025, to promote and deliver a culture of lifelong learning.

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

My Lords, the post-16 White Paper sets out our plan for giving people of all ages the skills and knowledge that they need to succeed and we need in order to develop a workforce that supports growth and national renewal. Through a range of policies and reforms across government, including the introduction of the lifelong learning entitlement, we will take a system-wide approach to promoting a culture of lifelong learning.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that response. I know she is aware that tomorrow marks the 60th anniversary of the launch by the then Arts Minister, Jennie Lee, later Baroness Lee of Asheridge, of the White Paper which led to the establishment of the Open University. That institution stands today as one of the finest legacies of any Labour Government. The 1966 White Paper emphasised that student enrolment should be open to everyone. This was referenced in the post-16 White Paper comment that there should be “no place or person” excluded from further education. Does my noble friend agree that more flexible pathways into and through higher education are necessary, as well as improved adult skills, that these are critical for economic growth, and that the Open University has a major role to play in this?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I strongly agree with my noble friend’s comments. I recognise the enormous contribution that a previous Labour Government made through Jennie Lee with the establishment of the Open University—and the contribution that the Open University has made in the last 60 years to enable people to learn in a way that suits them throughout their lives. It has transformed many people’s lives. As my noble friend says, we need to learn from that, not just in terms of our higher education but in how we can use the lifelong learning entitlement to enable people to learn throughout their lives—in further education and through independent learning providers and HE, supported by student finance. In the modern world, with a changing workplace, it is crucial that we enable that to happen and it is right that people have those opportunities.

[Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)]

My Lords, the lifelong learning entitlement was intended to usher in a skills revolution. But I fear that it will turn into a pea-shooter initiative unless the funding, the eligibility of which is restricted to level 4 and level 5 courses, is widened so that students can take level 7 courses. Will the Government set out what plans they have to do that?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It is important that we introduce the lifelong learning entitlement in a relatively restricted way, enabling us to build for the future. The key requirements, which I was addressing yesterday, are to provide flexibility for students at levels 4, 5 and 6. Those are the first priorities that we have set for the lifelong learning entitlement.

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)]

My Lords, the lifelong learning entitlement was the number one recommendation of the Augar review back in 2019, so one cannot say that implementation has been very rapid. Can the Minister give us any progress information on how many providers are proposing to offer modular provision, and on the consultation on break points in degrees, which would make it easier for people to study without having to undertake a complete undergraduate degree?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am very happy to write to the noble Baroness, and I am kicking myself for not knowing the numbers which will be in a position to offer modular provision in January 2027. We have taken quite a careful approach to ensuring that those which are able to do that will be offering high-quality courses at that point. We have had a very good response to that.

We are working now to determine how, as the noble Baroness says, we can enable there to be break points in degrees so that people can, at both level 4 and level 5, in some ways bank the learning that they have done and then possibly return to it later in life. I know she will push me to say that it is also important that we expand the numbers of students who are taking level 4 or 5 courses on their own as well.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

Following on from the emphasis on level 4 and 5 courses, what are we doing to encourage parents and pupils to accept that going on to level 4 and 5 courses after A-levels is a socially acceptable option, and one which schools should encourage? This cultural barrier is clearly one that has to be scrambled over.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right. When we were talking yesterday about the opportunities provided by V-levels and T-levels, I also talked about the way in which they would increase the numbers of people who would take level 4 and 5 courses. We all have a responsibility to show the credibility and the currency that both vocational and technical education can provide for young people.

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, this year marks the 20th anniversary of Unionlearn, which my noble friend Lord Blunkett should take a good deal of credit for, and which, at its peak, together with union learning reps, helped a quarter of a million workers into learning for the first time. Many of them would never have gone through a conventional classroom. Can my noble friend the Minister say what progress there is for supporting Unionlearn and enabling it to get back to helping more working people back into learning in the workplace?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. I can remember the contribution made by the union learning fund to support trade unions to enable the development of skills in their workplaces. It is a real shame that the last Government removed the funding from it. I can tell my noble friend that this is something that, relatively recently, we have been discussing within one of the two departments that I operate within. We are thinking about how we can get some of those benefits back and ensure that trade unions are able to contribute in a way in which they historically have done, to not only the representation of the workforce but the development of the workforce.

[Baroness Rawlings (Con)]

I declare my interest as a former chairman of King’s College London. What discussions have HMG had with the principals and vice-chancellors of universities on this subject?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I chair an advisory group on how we can develop and deliver the lifelong learning entitlement, which is well attended by vice-chancellors. I talk about the opportunities for lifelong learning whenever I get the chance.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, we support the Government’s White Paper objective that higher education reforms will drive economic growth. But that will work only if degrees benefit both students and the taxpayer. Does the Minister agree that there are currently too many degrees which contribute to neither growth nor positive outcomes?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Although the noble Earl did not revert to the language that some of his colleagues have used about university degrees, I share the view that, if we are expecting both young people and the state to invest in higher education, it needs to be of high quality. That is why I support the Office for Students in its current work to have a better definition of “quality” for higher education courses and why we have made it clear that we will want to link future increases in tuition fees to that measure of quality.

[Baroness Rafferty (Lab)]

My Lords, I too commend the work of the Open University in opening access to higher education. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that there is a targeted pathway in place to reduce the numbers of young people not in employment, education or training?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I can absolutely confirm that to my noble friend. Since my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions took on the role, it has been a key priority to tackle the 900,000 young people who are neither earning nor learning. That level is far too high and has been in existence for far too long. That is the reasoning behind the investment this Government are making in the youth guarantee, for example.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree that lifelong learning needs to be based upon a strong foundation, which has at its heart valuing education. That means that all parents should ensure that their children get into school, stay in school regularly and value the education that is on offer.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. That is why we celebrate the 5 million additional days that children have been in school over the last year. In our schools White Paper we set a further challenging target to get young people back into school and attending full-time. The noble Lord is right that we need the support of parents to do that.

Schools White Paper: Every Child Achieving and Thriving

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, the first thing to say is that I have been asking for this to come out for a long time, so I thank the Government for getting there eventually. The document does accept that it is a difficult and slow process that we are starting, and anybody who kids themselves that it is not will be doing a disservice to everybody involved. We are talking about 2030 for getting some structure in place. You have to train people, to get other people used to being told that they are operating differently in the classroom, and to get schools to re-incentivise, with an inclusion strategy and individual support plans. This is a cultural shift which will take real effort and time to push through. If we accept that, how will we make sure that everybody in every school understands that they have a duty and the ability to identify and tell parents what the problem is? That is where it all starts to go wrong.

At the moment, there is a disincentive for anybody to be identified by a school as having a special educational need, because you have got a budget that comes from the main school budget, which means you have got a choice between four kids getting their dyslexia support or help for autism or ADHD, or the roof leaks. How is that to be squared? It is not just more money; it is the allocation of money, and it is the duty. If you have an individual plan going through, are you flexible enough to allow that to be implemented?

There has been an acceptance in this Chamber every time I have spoken that you do not work harder; you work smarter. Individual groups will have a different take on this. I am a dyslexic, and I declare my interest as the president of the British Dyslexia Association. I use technology and I work with people who use technology—I declare my interest as the chairman of Microlink PC. The incentives I have there and the problems I square up to are different to those in the autism sector, which is probably one of the most vocal groups. How are we going to work these two in together? How are we going to have the flexibility to allow a school to actually undertake these different types of approach?

If you have that, if you make that an incentive, you stand a chance of getting a better situation, but only if you have identified that you can get the right help to the right person. Take dyslexia—I will cling to mother and talk to the one I know about. If it is not just the English teacher but the maths teacher who realises bad short-term memory means these individuals will not remember formulas and equations, bring those two together so everybody knows you will work differently. You can go into dyscalculia and others. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, is not here but she has actually raised this and done a great service in bringing it further forward. When these groups come through, how are we going to get the capacity into the school to identify and bring it forward?

The reassessment of all plans and support structures when you get to secondary school is a natural break—you go from acquiring basic skills to acquiring knowledge to pass exams. But how are we going to make sure that is not something where somebody says, “Right, you are doing this here”; it should be about how you continue, not how you stop. There is a fear, and it has become very apparent. I recommend the “Woman’s Hour” podcast if noble Lords want to have a definition of the fear that has come out about this. How are we going to deal with that? These are the sort of questions we are going to have to start to answer today and carry on with.

I welcome the approach here, but unless you actually get a more coherent pattern that reassures those who have fought to get their EHCPs, spending time, blood and not a little money on them, what are we going to do? Can we also have a commitment from the Minister that the Government will be looking at how to remove lawyers from the system? In many cases, there are a lot of very second-rate lawyers who have taken this work on and are milking the system. We cannot go back to this. We cannot go back to this situation where only the articulate and well off are getting the help they need.

I applaud the attention towards subjects like sport and music, because it helps with special educational needs if you have got some positive attitude towards them. How are we going to bring this together? How is the flexibility and that inclusion pathway going to be put down so that the rest of this can be put on? If you get that right, you stand a chance of making a real improvement here. If we do not have that and we do not have the identification capacity, you will not achieve that much.

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

My Lords, our White Paper, Every Child Achieving and Thriving, sets out our ambition to improve the lives of all children and young people, combining the support they receive at home with a school experience that is challenging, enriching and inclusive.

First, we will broaden children’s experience of education with a knowledge-rich curriculum, smooth the transition between phases, and introduce an enrichment entitlement for every child and accountability changes that promote breadth.

Secondly, we will ensure that children who have been sidelined for too long are fully included. We want every child to have the best start in life, with support available earlier and locally. Deprivation funding will be targeted to boost outcomes for the most disadvantaged children, and we are launching two place-focused missions to provide a blueprint for national change. Our ambitious SEND reforms will support mainstream inclusion so that children can access help without waiting for lengthy assessments or having to engage with lawyers—including from our £1.8 billion Experts at Hand programme, wrapping professionals such as speech and language therapists around schools, and removing the incentive that both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have identified for parents, who are desperate for the support that they need and want for their children, to have to fight through a lengthy process to get an education, health and care plan. But for those with more complex needs, new specialist provision packages, designed with experts and parents, will define the support required. All this is backed by £7 billion more for SEND in 2028-29 compared with 2025-26.

Thirdly, we will move from children and communities withdrawing from school to engaging with a new pupil engagement framework. Improved behaviour and attendance support and clearer information for parents will help strengthen relationships between families and schools.

Finally, we are building the strong foundations needed to deliver this change—more expert teachers, better training and improved maternity provision, deeper school collaboration through a trusted model and innovation powered by data, AI and regional RISE teams. These reforms, shaped by the largest national conversation on SEND, put children, families and inclusion at the heart of our system, and together they will ensure that every child in every community can achieve and thrive.

To give more detail on the incentives and funding point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, we have been clear that we will reform the system through the addition of £4 billion over the next three years, including the £1.6 billion for the inclusive mainstream fund, because we must get to a position where more parents feel confident that their children are receiving the support that they need in schools, alongside their friends and as part of their communities. We will provide £1.6 billion for that fund over three years, with over £500 million per year over the next three years to mainstream schools and other educational settings. That fund will give schools and other education settings direct responsibility over funding to empower them to deliver for children and young people with SEND. Over time, there will be a rebalancing of funding from the high needs budget into schools’ budgets, in line with new accountability arrangements—funding in schools where it needs to make the difference.

In addition, our £1.8 billion fund will enable there to be what we are calling Experts at Hand—speech and language therapists, educational psychologists, occupational therapists and others supporting children and teachers before the point at which children need to get to have an education, health and care plan. That funding will provide, for example, the equivalent of 160 days’ worth of support in a secondary school and 40 additional days in primary. We will expect schools to work in groups in order to ensure that, where it does not necessarily make sense or is not possible to provide that provision in one school, they can work together in order to ensure that that provision is available.

The key point here, as we think about education, health and care plans, is how we move to a system where children will not need an education, health and care plan to get support in the first place. Although, to be clear, education, health and care plans will remain for children with complex needs, they will be based on evidence-driven, expert-determined, specialist provision packages, which will enable better and more effective commissioning by local authorities of the provision that is most likely to provide support for children. They will back up the education, health and care plans, which will remain for those children with complex needs.

We are clear that we need to transform the system before we change the EHCP system. That is why we have been clear that no child will have their EHCP renewed before 2028-29 and that it will be only those children who are currently in year 2 or below, who will come to the end of their primary, at which point it would seem appropriate to review their education, health and care plan. Many of them may well continue with that plan; for others, the transformed system and the development of individual support plans for every child with special educational needs may provide a better opportunity at that point.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, is right. We need to train people and teachers in order to be able to deliver the inclusive education that is at the heart of this reform. That is why we have already announced the £200 million additional support for every teacher and educator, from early years through to colleges, to get training in special educational needs and the type of teaching required to support children and young people. That is why we will make additional support and practitioners available in early years to help to identify those children who need additional support, and it is why we will invest in research to find the most effective ways of doing that throughout the system.

To conclude, our ambition is clear: to build an education system that enables every child, wherever they live and whatever their needs, to achieve and to thrive. These reforms will deliver earlier support, stronger inclusion, broader opportunities and higher standards for all. They are shaped by parents, grounded in evidence and backed by significant investment. Most importantly, they place children at the heart of every decision that we make. Working together, we can create a system that is fairer, more ambitious and fit for the future. That is how we will ensure that every child can achieve and thrive.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, I know from my work as an MP how sensitive this issue is and how important it is to families. I used to represent a constituency that the Minister will know very well.

There are concerns that we should not ignore. A number of eminent clinicians and psychiatrists are now raising concerns that the expansion of diagnostic labels to conditions such as autism and ADHD is causing children with the most severe and complex needs to be overlooked. Given that one in three EHCPs is now given for autism and that the number of children overall with SEN is rising, does the Minister think there is any validity in these concerns? If she does, will she look at it? What is the response? Will the Fonagy review look at this issue specifically as well?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that I know that constituency very well, having proudly represented it for 13 years—although I am afraid that the history of Worcestershire’s approach to special educational needs has not always been as effective as we would want it to be. There is a challenge to be made to local authorities to ensure that they are stepping up to the mark, given the considerable additional investment that we are putting into the system.

On the point about diagnostic labels, the important thing is that we should not be waiting for a child to receive a label to determine whether they have needs that need to be met, both through more inclusive mainstream teaching and through additional support being provided within schools. Even when we get to the specialist provision packages, they will be determined not by labels but by the needs that children have in order to make progress.

On the point about overdiagnosis, we need to be careful. The Secretary of State has been clear about that. He has commissioned further research into the nature of the diagnosis, particularly in the areas of mental health and other learning difficulties. That is an appropriate thing to have done.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will agree that great teaching is vital to great schools and great childhoods. We both shared the pleasure of working at the chalkface for many years. What will the Government do in the months and years ahead to ensure that great teachers stay in the profession and that they themselves achieve and thrive?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right—and also about the joy that teaching brought to us both. That is why, alongside the White Paper, we published the implementation plan for delivering an additional 6,500 specialist teachers in our secondary schools and colleges. It is why, through the already improved pay for teachers, we are providing incentives for them to stay; why we are continuing to look at the working conditions that teachers operate under; and why, for example, the White Paper extends maternity pay for teachers from a pretty low base. Using all those things, and the support for teachers to do the job that they love even better, we are already seeing some progress in keeping more teachers in the classroom. We will continue to ensure that we focus on that.

[Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much welcome this document. It is very important and ambitious, but it is not without risk. The way in which the Government have consulted on it—and, in a way, taken their time—gives us the best possible chance of making a success of it. I hope that is the case.

I have two questions, which I hope the Minister can address. First, on the extra money going into the system to support SEND, I very much welcome the work that the Government plan to do on a new formula for supporting children from disadvantage. Will the way the SEND money goes into schools be part of that review and go in with money in the normal way, or will it take a different route? Will the details of that be announced? Secondly, I note that the White Paper allows local authorities to set up trusts. There is a quirky sentence, I think in chapter 5, which says that these local authority trusts will not be allowed to intervene or get involved in the day-to-day running of the school. That is not my impression of what happens with trusts at the moment. Will the rules that surround a local authority-led trust be exactly the same as the rules that surround others, or will they be slightly different, as this seems to indicate?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that the White Paper proposes a different approach to how we fund disadvantage, recognising that a “yes or no”, free school meals analysis of whether somebody is disadvantaged does not really get to the heart of the nature of that disadvantage. We will consult on that in relation to the money that schools receive for the pupil premium and for the disadvantage factors within the national funding formula, some of which would relate to children with SEND but is not specifically about SEND. The £4 billion additional funding for SEND will be allocated in the way I outlined in my first answer.

On the point about local authority trusts, it is the objective of the White Paper for all schools to be part of a trust. We are clear that, in some cases, there may not be existing trusts that could take on a school. For that reason we will also allow local authorities to set up trusts, but it is not the intention to recreate local authorities through trust provision. That is the reason for the particular arrangements for local authority trusts.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government. As a teacher, I think this is an amazing document and I look forward to talking about it a lot more. Something I particularly love about it is the high expectation of families. A question that comes to me—one of many—is that it talks about experts at hand, wrapping professionals around mainstream settings. I love the fact that the schools are becoming the experts, but it is pretty light on detail. Can the Minister be a little more specific about how this is going to happen?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am glad that the noble Lord recognises the emphasis on families and the relationship between schools and parents. An important element of the White Paper recognises, as I know the noble Lord does from his teaching career, that although teachers make a phenomenal difference to how children succeed, many other factors outside schools also impact on that. That is why this builds on a range of other activities, including those to support children to arrive at school ready to learn and our efforts to tackle child poverty, and brings stronger expectations on schools to ensure that they develop better home-school agreements and communicate consistently.

On the point about experts at hand, this is where I was talking about the additional funding that will enable some of those experts who, I am afraid, are currently spending too much time carrying out assessments or are in excellent special schools but are not able to offer that expertise out to schools, to develop it. Yes, there is work to be done on the design of how that happens, but this is considerable investment to deliver an average of 160 days to secondary schools precisely to get that support to children without them having to go through the torturous process of getting an education, health and care plan.

[Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Con)]

My Lords, I start by thanking all the officials involved in producing this very ambitious White Paper and crediting Ministers for their determination to tackle this very difficult issue. I wholeheartedly support their emphasis on early intervention.

The Minister very helpfully set out the plans for the £4 billion of spending that I understand is coming from the department’s existing spending review settlement over the next three years. I wonder whether she could also confirm—or correct me if I am wrong—that the Treasury is providing an additional £3.5 billion in 2028-29 as a one-off payment. Is this funding earmarked to cover the projected £6 billion of deficits that the OBR set out? I would be grateful if she could clarify that for me and tell me if I have misunderstood.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The £4 billion is additional funding over the next three years. The £6 billion that the OBR identified was based on the premise of an unreformed system. That the system is being reformed means that, by the time we get to 2028-29 and 2029-30, we will be operating in a very different system. As part of the local government settlement, we have also begun the process of writing off and taking over responsibility for the money that local authorities have built up from overspending on special educational needs in recent years. Those two things are separate.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that my diocese has more than 190 Church schools and we educate around 60,000 children, in the total roll across them. The Church of England has already officially welcomed the White Paper and these Benches echo that this evening.

In Manchester, we have been looking at those points of transition—the transition from preschool into primary and from primary into secondary. In the past five or six years, the Bolton metropolitan area has had a project called Children Changing Places, because we recognise that, in those points of transition, children’s academic, social and spiritual development can go backwards, so we have been investing money into those points of transition. I note that both the White Paper and the Minister, in her replies this evening, referred to those points of transition. Might I tempt her to say a little more about how children can be enabled to manage those transitions without dropping back in their various levels of attainment?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate makes a very important point. As an example, we are working on how we can ensure that children are better prepared when they start school with an ambitious target to improve that, and investment in Best Start in Life and childcare to enable it.

Another key transition is from primary to secondary. Too often, key stage 3—the first three years in secondary—is not spent as effectively as it could be. Developing a new programme around the best practice for key stage 3 and really focusing on that will be part of the work of the RISE teams.

Another area where transition is often raised is in relation to SEND and children going from mainstream schools into colleges. We will make better provision for that and expect schools, at an earlier stage, to provide the information that colleges need to help children with special educational needs to thrive.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my education interests, in particular as chair of STEM Learning and of the E-ACT multi-academy trust. At some of our E-ACT primary schools in Bristol, we have been investing in speech and language therapy training for all our mainstream teachers in reception and early years. As a result, we are identifying more pupils with special educational needs but fewer are going on to have education, health and care plans. That gives me optimism in the basis for early intervention in these reforms and that it will work.

My question to my noble friend is around the seven specialist provision packages. Getting the detail right on those is crucial to gain the confidence of parents. How can we ensure that the consultation that the department is carrying out will properly include all stakeholders, including those with special educational needs and disabilities?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend has identified the benefits of early intervention, as he says. We need a clearer and more evidence-based approach to what is appropriate for children with complex needs, which is why we are creating a new set of nationally consistent specialist provision packages. They will be designed to set clear expectations of what high-quality specialist provision should offer. They will be developed by experts and tested with families to make sure that they work in real life and reflect the best evidence about what helps children thrive. As I said, they are not based on diagnoses; instead, they will focus on the support that a child needs to learn, communicate, feel regulated and take part in school life. This important work will also be reviewed by an independent national expert panel, which will help to keep them up to date.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, my question relates to the plans for a review of education, health and care plans after primary school from 2030. For children with a special school place from September 2029, there is a promise to keep their place, but their EHCP will be reviewed.

I am drawing on my experience as a governor at a primary school in London that had an autistic unit. When it was created, the assumption was that children would be there for a few years, would get support and would then be able to move into mainstream schooling. That was not the experience. As school years go forward, the curriculum becomes more complex and the social setting of a classroom becomes more complex, and children were not able to make that progression.

If there is to be a review of EHCPs at the end of primary, do the Government have any evidence or data on how many people with an EHCP will lose it? We have to pick up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about parents putting so much time, energy and money into securing these EHCPs and the fear of losing them. What will the benefit of the review be versus the cost to parents?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

First, to be clear, the majority of children who have an EHCP are in a special school. No child who is in a special school will need to leave a special school placement at any point. Secondly, on the point about bases in schools, part of the investment that we are putting in is to enable more opportunities within schools, to develop the type of bases that will provide specialist support for children but enable them to stay in mainstream schools in their communities, alongside their friends.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that these changes are desperately needed. The system is currently broken and we need to see change. I press the Minister on the issue of the pupil premium, a scheme designed for funding to follow disadvantaged young people. If any review is undertaken of how that money is allocated, can the Minister assure us that it will be done in a transparent way so that we know which people may lose out? Can the Minister commit to at least trying to protect funding for care-experienced young people when it comes to the pupil premium?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

This is not about how we cut the money that is available for disadvantage; this is about how we ensure that it is spent in a way that recognises that not all disadvantage is the same. We will be maintaining—in fact, we have increased—spending on the pupil premium. In relation to the overall review of the funding formula and the way in which we allocate the pupil premium, all of that will be subject to consultation, which will be starting this summer.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome this initiative and the document—they are brilliant. However, I want to ask about the children who might have to attend a special school because of their particular needs and the challenges that they face. As somebody has already mentioned, one of the problems that local authorities face in the overspend on this concerns some of the special schools that we already have, which are profit-gouging. They are overcharging huge amounts of money for our most vulnerable children. We know that there are excellent special schools in the sector run by charities, social enterprises and, indeed, some of the private enterprises, but it is clear that those making vast profits need to be dealt with. I welcome the investment that has been proposed, but I would like to ask my noble friend the Minister about the transition that will happen. Will new powers be needed for local authorities and others, to make sure that we do not leave children and parents vulnerable because of the schools that are having to be dealt with?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. There is excellent work going on in our special schools, in the state sector and the independent sector. However, it cannot be right that there is a differential of three times between that which is charged in independent special schools and that which is charged in state special schools. Where that reflects highly specialised provision, that is legitimate, but where it is feeding private equity and, as my noble friend says, focused on profit, it is wholly wrong. That is why we will improve the regulation of independent special schools and, using the specialist packages that we are developing, create price bands indicating what local authorities will pay for children to go there. We can then be clearer that the money we are spending is delivering outcomes for children and not profits for private equity.

[Baroness Debbonaire (Lab)]

My Lords, my question has been partly answered. I thank my noble friend the Minister for bringing the Statement to the House and for the White Paper. I would like to press her a little more on that very topic. While it is absolutely right that these schools not be run for such profit-gouging as has been mentioned, how will needs be assessed in the case of children with very complex needs who are currently in specialist education that is well-run? I declare an interest, in that my nephew works with those children.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Children in special schools, either in the state sector or in independent special schools, will be there by virtue of an education, health and care plan. They will keep that education, health and care plan if they are in a special school. That will now be reinforced by clearer evidence and recognition of what the best practice would be for those children. Part of that evidence will be informed by the excellent work that is happening within special schools. If we can also get some of the expertise in special schools into mainstream schools through the £1.8 billion investment and the “expert at hand” provision then we really will have made sure that we are making the most of the excellent work that happens in our special schools.

Free Speech Complaints Scheme

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Skidelsky]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the letter to the Secretary of State for Education, signed by more than 350 academics and campaigners, calling for a free-speech complaints scheme run by the Office for Students.

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

My Lords, the Government are absolutely committed to freedom of speech and academic freedom. I can confirm that the Secretary of State and I have considered the letter and the concerns raised in it, and I had the opportunity to meet with and hear from many of the signatories. While I cannot comment on the future legislative programme, our commitment to the complaints scheme has been clearly set out. We will act to protect freedom of speech and academic freedom, and we are considering options.

[Lord Skidelsky (CB)]

I thank the Minister for her reply. Can she please explain why a complaints scheme has not yet been introduced, despite the Government’s promise set out in the Department for Education policy paper published in June 2025 to

“seek a legislative vehicle at the earliest opportunity”?

Do the Government have a timetable for legislation to amend and implement the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act to achieve that purpose?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As I made clear in my Answer, we have committed to introducing the revised complaints process. It is normal practice not to comment on future legislative opportunities. However, I assure the noble Lord that we are making progress with this. I expect us to be able to introduce the amended complaints scheme sooner rather than later.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as director of the Free Speech Union. The Minister has said in the past that the complaints scheme provided for in Section 8 of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 has not yet been introduced because the Secretary of State wants to amend the scheme to prevent students being able to submit complaints to the Office for Students about their speech being unlawfully interfered with, and that the only way to introduce the revised scheme, as the noble Lord said, would be via an amendment to a suitable legislative vehicle, and said vehicle has yet to hove into view. However, I have been told by a senior parliamentary official in response to a question that I submitted to the Library that the Government could, via secondary legislation, partially commence Section 8 in a way that meets the Secretary of State’s concerns. There is no constitutional reason why this has to be done by primary legislation. Why has it not been done yet?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Students can already express complaints through the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. The plan for the complaints scheme was that it should focus on staff, visiting speakers and members. The noble Lord has talked to me about his alternative proposal. It is one that, along with other options, we are considering.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, if freedom of expression is a priority for this Government, why have they not considered short, stand-alone legislation, similar to the medical training Bill that we will debate later this afternoon, so that any issues could be resolved quickly and not leave academics in legal limbo for years to come?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We will not be leaving academics in legal limbo. Freedom of speech is undoubtedly a priority for this Government. It was a Labour Government who first enshrined freedom of expression in law through the Human Rights Act.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, even in the last few weeks we have seen academics required to go to court to vindicate their rights. They have been forced to bring expensive proceedings and we have seen huge payouts made by institutions to academics who have been unlawfully treated. It is my understanding that there is now authoritative legal advice that has been sought by academics, lawyers and Members of this House on how the Government could introduce the complaints scheme—which is on the statute book but not yet in force—in a way which meets the Government’s concerns about the width of the scheme while ending the otherwise unstoppable rush to the courts. Can the Minister commit to asking her officials to review those proposals as a matter of urgency?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I hope that the noble Baroness had a relaxing recess. As I said in response to her noble friend, a range of options has been proposed. I am not quite sure that the legal advice is as authoritative as she suggests, but I am in constant conversation with officials about the most appropriate route through which to commence the complaints scheme. We will make progress on this.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware that the greatest threat to academic free speech—the ability to research, publish and teach students—is the funding situation of UK universities. Half of UK universities face a deficit in 2025-26 and as many as 50 are at risk of closure in the next year. The University and College Union tracker shows that 105 universities are facing major redundancies. Our universities are in crisis. What are the Government going to do?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that the freezing of tuition fees by the previous Government put considerable financial strain on the university sector, which is why I am sure she will support this Government in our inflation-linked increases to tuition fees in order to fund universities. There is no point willing the ends if you are not willing to will the means.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

Can we include criticism of the actions of Israel in Gaza in the freedom of speech argument, because there are many of us who are being silenced by it?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I have not seen much evidence that the noble Lord is being silenced, but it remains an important part of free speech provisions to be able to protest legitimately—but not, of course, to harass or to promote antisemitism on campus. It is completely clear that that is the case, and there is a clear distinction between the two.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, I wonder if the Minister can give us an indication of when the Government will respond to your Lordships’ House’s special report into social mobility. It has been sat on the Secretary of State’s desk for a long time now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I cannot quite remember when it was that I appeared in front of the committee on that report, but I enjoyed the experience. I do not think it will be very long, from memory.