Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to this group of amendments on the children not in school register, which seek to probe issues surrounding privacy. The children not in school consultation aimed to collate thoughts and views around local authority registers of children not attending school to ensure that all children receive a positive and beneficial education regardless of where that education might be taking place. There were close to 5,000 responses, predominantly from parents, but also from both local authorities and charities, and the findings will help to weave a gold standard of policy and guidance, which I am sure all noble Lords wish to be entirely fit for purpose.

On these specific amendments, it is of course acknowledged that the priority should be to find the right balance between privacy on the one hand and the safety of children who are not well looked after on the other. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Barran, who has already set out so well His Majesty’s loyal Opposition’s view on these issues in the previous groups, so I will not detain your Lordships’ House by repeating those same arguments.

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

Amendments in group 4, which we have now got to, concern the inclusion of certain information in the registers and the delegated power for changes to be made to the operation of the registers. I turn to speak to Amendments 255, 256, 257, 258 and 259, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Each amendment addresses an element of the information which the Secretary of State may prescribe for inclusion in the registers.

Just to reiterate, as I did on the last group, parents need to provide only certain limited information about their child: their name, date of birth, address and how they are educated. All further information which the Secretary of State may prescribe for inclusion in the registers is voluntary for parents to provide. This includes information on the child’s protected characteristics, which Amendment 255 would remove, current and historic child protection inquiries, which Amendment 256 would remove, current or previous child-in-need status, which Amendment 257 would remove, the reasons for the child having looked-after status on the registers, which Amendment 258 would remove, and reasons why the child is eligible for inclusion in the register, which Amendment 259 would delete.

As mentioned in the previous group, the Secretary of State may prescribe in regulations the information which the local authority shall be required to include in the “children not in school” registers, if they hold it or can reasonably obtain it. The intention is for this additional information to help local authorities better understand and support children who are not in school. My department will consult on the content of regulations following Royal Assent. I suggest to the noble Lord that the consultation process is the right approach to determine whether there is a case for omitting certain information or including details such as the reasons for a child’s looked-after status in the registers. On Amendment 255, I am happy to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that the relevant provision is indeed compatible with European Court of Human Rights rulings. The ECHR memorandum makes this clear.

Amendment 262, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, removes the delegated power for the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to prescribe how registers must be maintained. This power is intended to enable the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to provide for consistency among local authorities as to how their registers are maintained. This could include factors such as how and how often registers are checked for accuracy, how amendments are to be made, their format, and whether and how registers should be published. Most local authorities already voluntarily maintain a register of children not in school, developed based on their local needs. However, to ensure the accuracy of data and encourage consistency of practices across all areas, the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers must be able to prescribe processes relating to maintenance and upkeep in the future.

As mentioned, we will consult on all regulations used to implement the “children not in school” measures, all but one of which will then be laid via the affirmative procedure. I hope that, for the reasons I have outlined, the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I have not spoken much at this stage of the Bill but, having heard the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I have to say very respectfully that I am concerned.

It seems to me enormously important that the local authority has the opportunity to understand what is happening with children who are home-schooled, and it has the responsibility to check. I have no doubt at all that the family of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, teach their children extremely well at home but my understanding from what I have been told is that this is not true in every family. I think the Government are entirely right to be taking the steps that they are taking, just to check that our children who are not at school are properly cared for.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, as I have said previously, the duty on parents to give information for children not in school registers is key to their operation. Information on where the child is being educated, and by whom, is vital in enabling local authorities to identify cases of potentially unsuitable or unsafe education.

The amendments in this group concern this requirement for parents to give information, and how local authorities must act in a transparent and accountable manner towards the home-educating families in their area. Amendment 277, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, seeks, in effect, to remove the requirement.

I want to respond to the broader points that the noble Baroness made about home-schooling. I completely understand—actually, I am not sure that I do understand—why she might have wanted to celebrate the election of her new leader. In any event, I recognise that she has a new leader, which was decided this morning. Had she been here this morning, she would have heard what were, I hope, important comments from me and others on the support that exists within the English and Welsh education system, precisely for parents to home-educate, and the reiteration by this Government that there is no intention in this legislation to remove that right. In fact, there is an intention to provide additional recognition and support while also ensuring that local authorities are able to carry out their functions, by knowing where children are being educated otherwise than in school. I hope that the noble Baroness will read the comments that I made this morning about that.

Without a requirement on home-educating parents to register with their local authority, authorities cannot be assured that they have fulfilled their education duties towards children not in school living in their areas. Parents having to provide required information is an absolutely crucial component for the success of the registers.

I bring my noble friend Lord Hacking back to the point that I made this morning. I was completely clear that it is not the case that failing to provide information to the register would lead directly to parents having to face fines and penalties. I hope that my noble friend will reread that contribution and find that it provides some assurance around the point that he made.

I recognise that there are home educators who are already known to local authorities and are captured on voluntary registers. However, that is not the case for all because there is currently no legal requirement for parents to tell local authorities that they are home-educating. Without placing this proactive duty on parents, local authorities will have no assurance that they have identified all children not in school in their areas. As I have mentioned previously, the duty on parents to give information for registers is separate from but complementary to the annual reports that some parents submit to local authorities for the purposes of providing in-depth information about their child’s education.

In terms of parents giving detailed information on the child’s learning objectives and progress towards them, we want parents to continue to have flexibility to submit information in a way that works best both for them and for the elective home education officer. However, for the basic information, such as where the child is being educated and by whom, it is essential that there is a level of consistency in how this is submitted, collected and maintained. Parents of home-educated children in almost all other western countries must, as a minimum, provide details for a register. Children in England and Wales deserve the same level of assurance.

Amendment 278, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to allow parents to provide the required information in their own words. I appreciate how that approach would afford some flexibility to parents, but there needs to be consistency. That is why we are seeking a delegated power for the Secretary of State to prescribe how local authorities maintain and keep their registers, including the use of a prescribed registration form. We will ensure that the form is accessible and simple for families to use.

Amendments 280, 282 and 285, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to restrict the duty on parents to provide information for registers, and the ability of local authorities to request information, by imposing time limits. Amendment 280 would restrict local authorities from requesting required information to once a year and impose a “reasonable cause to suspect harm” threshold for further engagement. Amendment 282 would provide a similar threshold so that parents did not have to provide information more than once every 12 months, and Amendment 285 would go further by introducing a civil penalty of up to £5,000 for local authorities for asking for information too frequently.

Twelve months would be too long a period for a local authority to be unaware of a change to a registered child’s education provision or personal circumstances. Education concerns can arise at any time, and local authorities must retain the ability to act proportionately without needing to meet a safeguarding threshold. The threshold risks conflating safeguarding with the separate duty to ensure that a child is receiving a suitable education.

Amendments 283 and 284, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to extend parental response times from 15 to 30 days, as well as alternative deadlines that would potentially extend the timeframe to 12 months. We are keen that the length of time to respond to a request is proportionate and balances the needs of the family with the risk of a child being out of education for too long. That is why the Bill already allows a local authority the discretion to extend the timeframe for response to requests for information. That discretion could be used by local authorities if they make the request at a time when, for example, it is likely that a family may be on holiday.

Amendment 281, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to require parents of registered children to provide updates to their local authority only when there has been a substantial change to their information in the register. We share the noble Lord’s ambition that the burden on parents to provide information is kept to a minimum, but we have to ask: what would count as a substantial change? For example, a child attending a setting for an extra half an hour a week could mean that the child was then attending that setting for 18 hours or more, potentially indicating that the setting was operating illegally. Even though it was just 30 minutes more, it would be right that the local authority knew about it as the child might be attending an illegal school.

I know that the noble Lord is also concerned that families may overcomply with their duty to update information. I thank him and other noble Lords for detailing these concerns to my officials in the July meeting. We are committed to ensuring that the registers work for everyone and will continue to take into consideration the feedback that we have heard from your Lordships, home educators and local authorities.

I turn to Amendment 287, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei. In a situation where parents have not fulfilled their duty to give information for registers, the amendment would require a local authority to seek approval from a magistrate or independent tribunal before taking further steps to gather the required information. Requiring local authorities to seek approval from magistrates or a tribunal before making reasonable inquiries about a child’s education is disproportionate at best. At worst, it risks children being in unsuitable education for long periods.

If a parent of an eligible child does not provide required information for a register, local authorities may continue informal inquiries. They also have the discretion to issue a preliminary notice for a school attendance order. This notice would require the parent to provide information on the suitability of the child’s education. These are proportionate responses to ensure a child is in receipt of suitable education.

Amendments 270, 380 and 382 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to establish new review processes, including in situations where it is believed that a local authority is acting outside guidance or law. Local authorities are required to act in accordance with the law and should follow statutory guidance. If parents feel that a local authority has acted unreasonably or has not followed the law, there are several existing complaints processes in place, such as the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the judicial review process; in some cases the Secretary of State has powers to intervene.

The guidance updated as part of the children not in school measures will build on existing non-statutory guidance to ensure greater consistency around complaint processing. The new statutory guidance will also be consulted on prior to implementation. Data gathered by the department as a result of the children not in school registers will also allow us to draw comparisons between local authorities, identify any outliers and offer further support to these local authorities where appropriate. For these reasons, while we fully support engagement and transparency between local authorities and home-educating families, we do not believe that these amendments are the right way to achieve that aim.

Amendment 388 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to set up an annual review panel made up of home-educated children to advise on legislation impacting home education. The voice of the child is an important consideration when developing and implementing education and safeguarding policies. There have been previous consultations on changes to home education and young people were able to feed in their views, including a call for evidence in 2018, a consultation on the children not in school registers in 2019 and updates to the elective home education guidance in 2023. We would also welcome input from children as part of the future consultation on the children not in school statutory guidance as part of the implementation of the measures in this Bill.

For the reasons I have outlined, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive set of answers, most of which amount to “wait and see”, which I shall be delighted to do. I would be very grateful if she would send me some information on what she thinks the scope of the Local Government Ombudsman is in this area. I had previously thought that they would not have jurisdiction, so I would be very grateful for the Department for Education’s understanding of what sort of questions they will feel able to resolve. Given that, I beg leave to withdraw.

--- Later in debate ---

However, we are slightly less clear—the same may be true for the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, in relation to his Amendment 288A—about the duties placed on providers that offer irregular or brief sessions. Like the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and others, we are concerned about sports, music and other activities. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, argued that there should be some parameters around the requirements for providers to submit information to the register. The Minister rejected the number of hours as a mechanism for a parameter, so it would be helpful for her to set out, beyond non-educational activities, whether there are any other parameters that the Government see as being relevant here. With that, I commend my Amendments 291 and 293 to the Committee.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Let me organise my notes—you are keen for things to move quickly and then they move just that bit too quickly.

The importance of out-of-school education providers to home-educating families has been raised several times already. I recognise again the important part these settings play, providing enriching activities and education to a vast array of children. I hope that these providers will recognise that the measures included in the Bill give no reason to cease this valuable work—notwithstanding that I recognise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, about the concerns of organisations as we clarify the intentions here. We will continue, therefore, to engage with the sector on the implementation of children not in school registers, so it is confident in what the registers mean for it.

The amendments in this group concern the duty on certain out-of-school education providers to give information for children not in school registers. Amendment 288, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to remove the duty. This is a vital element of the measures that will aid the identification of children who should be on registers but are not. It is essential for enabling local authorities to cross-reference information on their registers to ensure accuracy. We know that many out-of-school education providers share our ambition to secure the best possible outcomes for these children and will gladly support the registers on that basis.

Amendment 290, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to remove the word “structured” from the definition of out-of-school education. Actually, the impact of this amendment would be to potentially bring many more providers into scope of the duty, such as informal or ad hoc educational arrangements. It is important that the duty remains proportionate. I know that proportionality is an ambition shared by many noble Lords in this House and has been an important theme of the debates today.

This is not to say that informal or ad hoc educational arrangements are invalid. We know that some home-educators follow child-led approaches to learning, in which, under the direction of their parent, children learn from a wide range of people they encounter in their daily lives. Parents can record this as time spent in education for the purposes of the registers, but local authorities will not have the power to seek information from those individuals.

It is also important to note that the provider duty applies only where education is provided without any parent of the child being actively involved in their tuition or supervision. This means that groups of home-educating parents who meet up with their children are unlikely to be captured by the duty. The duty also applies only when an individual is providing the education; therefore, creators of platforms for e-learning, for example, would not be required to give information on children who access their websites.

Amendments 288A, 291, 292 and 293, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would limit the Secretary of State’s power to set a threshold at which local-level authorities can request information from out-of-school education providers, or otherwise exempt providers from the duty to give information; for example, by removing the requirement in respect of education they provide on weekends or during school holidays to home-educated children—I will not return to that again; I have taken out the relevant paragraph.

I agree with the sentiment behind these amendments. The Bill allows for regulations to set a threshold, and we are committed to setting it at a suitable level. I recognise the probing element of the amendments in this case; however, noble Lords’ varying suggestions on where the threshold should be set—for example, at six or 10 hours—exemplify why it should not be set in primary legislation. We will consult further to ensure the threshold balances the need for local authorities to collect necessary information without placing unreasonable burdens on providers. Noble Lords will also have the opportunity to debate the threshold when it is set in regulations through the affirmative procedure.

To reiterate, the intention behind the provider duty is to capture the providers involved in providing a home-educated child’s education, rather than organised activities that the child may be involved in for primarily recreational or social reasons—even if they are important for their development, such as the example of rugby raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington.

As I previously highlighted, the ability to prescribe a threshold, as well as the ability to make regulations to exempt types of providers from the duty, will help ensure that only those that are relevant are captured. It is our intention to exempt those organisations that have a drop-in, drop-out nature or happen irregularly. Examples of that include museums that offer workshops for children, as my noble friend Lady Morris stated this morning; public lectures that are open to any family or individual to book; and periods of work experience, as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp has suggested. It is our intention to exempt those organisations and types of activities.

I know that some noble Lords are concerned that the provider duty introduces a disparity between school children and home-educated children, but we must remember that there is a huge level of oversight for where and what children are learning at school, which is bolstered by inspection frameworks, curriculum requirements and attendance data. What we are asking of out-of-school education providers in comparison is minimal. As part of the implementation, we will keep engaging with the sector to ensure continuity of provision for home-educated children; I recognise how important that is.

Amendments 294 and 299, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to remove the requirement for providers to confirm to local authorities whether they are providing out-of-school education to a child for more than the prescribed amount of time, and to remove the requirement to provide information on the amount of time they are doing so. Amendment 294 would require providers to give information on any child. This would not be proportionate. The legislation limits this to children to whom they are providing education above a prescribed threshold without their parents’ involvement.

In reference to Amendment 299, on understanding the number of hours children are attending such provision without their parents, we will support local authorities to identify children who are attending unregistered independent schools. Some children not in school are attending those illegal settings for long hours and are not receiving a safe or suitable education. It is crucial that the local authority has the information required to intervene in those circumstances.

Turning to Amendment 298, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which seeks to further clarify the information that providers are required to give local authorities on the total amount of time for which they provide education to children, we believe this amendment is unnecessary. The drafting is already clear that the total amount of time that the provider provides education to the child refers to the time when the child is receiving education from the provider. However, statutory guidance can be used to give further detail if necessary.

On Amendment 296, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which would require providers in scope of the duty to provide only information that they already know to local authorities, providers should already hold the required information for health and safety and safeguarding purposes, and they will have to provide it only on request. Enabling providers to provide only the information that they know makes it too easy for unsuitable settings to just say “I don’t know” and to keep children hidden away from the services that are there to support them.

On Amendment 300, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which would remove the provision in new Section 436E that the local authority must request information from a provider by sending or leaving a notice at the place where the education is provided, providers in scope of the duty need clarity on how information will be requested. I acknowledge that the noble Lord has tabled this amendment due to his concerns as to how the provision will work for virtual providers. The legislation already provides for a notice to be served electronically, and we can make this clear in statutory guidance.

On Amendments 301 and 302, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which seek to extend the period by when a provider must respond to a local authority’s request for information, it is essential that local authorities have the requested information as soon as possible so that they can ensure that their registers are accurate and identify children who should be registered but are not. The timeframe for providers to give the required information is at least 15 days, and a local authority has discretion to extend that—for example, to account for closures over holiday periods.

Amendments 303 and 304, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 295, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, set out reasons to exempt some out-of-school education providers from monetary penalties should they not provide requested information for a local authority’s register. A local authority does not have to impose a monetary penalty on providers should they fail to provide information or provide incorrect information. It would be unlikely that a local authority would issue a monetary penalty if a provider had made a minor mistake for the first time, for instance. We will look to make it clear in the statutory guidance that authorities can engage with providers to correct minor mistakes without having to resort to penalty notices. The process for providers to make representations against and appeal a monetary penalty is set out in the Bill. I think this is sufficient recourse for providers who disagree with their monetary penalty.

I hope that, for the reasons I have outlined and because of the explanations I have provided, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister made some excellent and very clear statements in response to my amendment, which are extremely useful. Will she consider putting any part of that in the Bill? It seemed to me that she was very clear and definitive, and that it was not beyond the wit of the department to come up with some clever form of words that would indicate what she stated without making it very difficult to introduce regulations later. Perhaps that is something the Minister would consider.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I have stated it on the record here. I have also identified one of the problems with putting it in the Bill—I used the example of time limits, where, so far, we have had two different suggestions as to whether that should be six hours or 10 hours. The noble Lord knows this, but there are real difficulties and inflexibilities in placing that sort of detail in legislation. I would be more than happy to write to noble Lords, going over again the intention with respect to those regulations. I think I am right in saying that the regulations will also be subject to consideration by this House. I hope that that will reassure the noble Lord. As much as I know that people love things to be in Bills, in this case I genuinely think that we can be clear about the intention and provide assurances without creating the inflexibility that placing something in the Bill would do.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

If my noble friend could imagine that she has not sat down, I would like to ask one question. Maybe I have missed it out, but the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, tabled Amendment 295 but did not speak to it in the debate, and I am not sure that I heard any reply to it from my noble friend. This amendment is important because, once again, detailed information is being sought from parents and, if they are in breach of providing that information, it is stipulated 15 times that they are exposed to monetary penalty. Has my noble friend dealt with this? Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, can help here.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Well, I can reassure my noble friend that I did cover Amendment 295 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. What we are talking about in these provisions relates to penalties on providers. We have moved on from the discussions that we were having about the requirements for parents to provide information. I hope that my noble friend will look back on what I said. I did provide quite considerable reassurance about both the process and the range of circumstances in which monetary penalties would most certainly not be the first thing that would be looked to in relation to a failure by providers to provide information.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her tolerance and undertake to properly read the Hansard of today’s debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, raised this issue at Second Reading. I supported him then and I support him again now. It is quite unfair that a child who has been educated privately at home should be placed in a different position from state-educated children. All children who have been home educated should be encouraged to go through these exams and not face a financial penalty. This is a very simple measure, and I ask my noble friend the Minister to give it favourable consideration. It is a much fairer system and it encourages all home-educating parents to put their children through examination, so that the quality of their teaching can be tested.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Supporting children to achieve and thrive requires parents, authorities and education providers to work together. That is what much of our debate today has been about and speaks to the amendments in this group that concern the facilitation of examinations and the publication of exam results for home-educated children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, I thank the Minister for her response. I absolutely support the sentiment just expressed by my noble friend Lord Lucas about the importance of understanding the outcomes for children who are home-educated.

In relation to my Amendment 306, the reasons that the Minister gave for not aggregating and publishing, or even aggregating and not publishing, their GCSE results was—as I wrote down—that, first, it was hard to do and, secondly, it would not produce the results that we expect. It feels curious to me that someone could not put a box on the form—that a child could tick, to say that they were home-educated—that could be aggregated.

On the expected results, the whole point, or part of the point, was to understand how many home-educated children were taking public exams and how many were not. I think that would be a useful bit of information. So I do not accept the argument that it would not produce the results that we expect; we do not have an expectation because we do not know what they are. More widely, when there were very small numbers of children who were home-educated, it was perhaps—

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Just to be clear, I do not know whether I said that they would not produce the results that we expect. If I did, that was not what I meant to say. What I meant to say was that in terms of the ability to have a statistical analysis of the quality of home education, the different nature of home education and the range, quite rightly, of decisions made by parents—many of whom might decide that exams are not the appropriate route for their children—would mean that we would not be able to formulate from that data the common view of performance that the noble Baroness is suggesting would be the objective.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that clarification. What I wrote down is “not producing the results we expect”. We can check in Hansard whether that is what she actually said. I suppose the point I was trying to make is that this is a kind of entry point question. It is not going to give us a sophisticated analysis but it gives us some perspective. If we tried to estimate by taking a straw poll of Members of the House what percentage of home-educated children do GCSEs, we might get very varying results, so even just knowing that might be valuable.

On the other amendments in this group, the Minister was clear that parents are fully responsible, including on the financial implications of home education, but it was good to hear her reiterate the support duty, including on access to previous exam papers. How that support duty is communicated to parents will obviously be of great importance. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, there is a series of amendments that would unlock more financial support for electively home-educating families, including Amendments 401, 402, 411, 413, 419 and 422 in the name of my noble friend Lord Wei. The Minister was crystal clear in response to the last group about where the financial responsibility lies with electively home-educating parents. I sympathise with the Minister in finding the right balance here—to make sure that any support offered, including any financial support, strikes the right balance and is not interpreted as actively encouraging home education, and that we are clear that school for the vast majority of children is the best place to be.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, this Government are introducing the first ever duty on local authorities to provide support specifically for home-educating families. While home-educating parents assume full responsibility for the education of their child, local authorities can and should be a source of information and advice for parents. At the heart of this is the importance of families and local authorities working together to support all children to achieve and thrive. The support duty establishes a baseline level of support across all English and Welsh local authorities. We will say more about the form that that should take in statutory guidance, were this legislation to pass—or when it passes, I should say, optimistically.

I shall respond to some of the points that have been raised in this group on the support duty and access to resources and facilities for home educators. First, I turn to those amendments which focus on the operation of the support duty and relationships between local authorities and home-educating families: Amendments 309, 309A, 310, 311, 313, 313A, 314 and 315. Amendments 309 and 310, tabled by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, would require local authorities to provide support to families irrespective of whether they choose to access it. I have sympathy with the points made by my noble friend about some of the very vulnerable children who may receive home education. It is probably more appropriate to think about the other forms of support that those children should receive—or even, given that level of vulnerability, whether or not home education is the appropriate and suitable education for them. The other issue is that this proposal would also remove local authority discretion as to the nature of the support provided. It would mean that many home-educating families who would prefer to have a choice as to whether they wish to access the support offered by local authorities would not have that choice, as the amendment suggests that authorities should provide support to families irrespective of whether they choose to access it.

Amendment 309A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, would require support to be provided in a language that the parent understands. I am happy to advise that local authorities will have to have due regard to each individual request from parents, which would include consideration of accessibility through use of languages other than English where necessary. This aligns with local authorities’ compliance with the public sector equality duty to consider the diverse needs of different individuals within their community.

I turn to Amendments 311 and 313A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Amendment 311 would require the local authority to have regard to the needs of the child and educational preference of their parents when considering which forms of support to offer. This amendment is unnecessary. We would already expect local authorities to take these factors into account when offering advice and information as part of the support duty. Amendment 313A appears to seek to introduce a “best interest” consideration in relation to the exemption of certain children from the benefit of the support duty—specifically, those children who would be exempt because they have secured additional learning provision or other provision as set out in the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018.

The children exempt from the support duty, as set out in new Section 436G(3) in Clause 31, are exempt in order to avoid the duplication of support from local authorities. For instance, a child in receipt of alternative provision arranged by the local authority would already be in receipt of support from the local authority. Including a “best interests” test in the process specifically related to children subject to Welsh additional learning needs legislation is unnecessary. We are confident that the support duty focuses on the right children, and the existing exemption prevents duplicative support having to be provided by local authorities.

I turn to Amendment 313, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, Amendments 408 and 412, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, and Amendment 426C, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. These amendments would give a right of access to a range of services, facilities and other advantages to home-educated children. Advantages such as access to a school’s facilities and extra-curricular provision are specific to school attendance. If parents wish to access these, a state-funded school place remains available for the child. When a child has an education, health and care plan, most parents will have the choice to make suitable alternative arrangements to those listed in it. For example, most parents can choose to home-educate rather than take advantage of the special educational provision secured by the local authority. It is right that, when alternative arrangements have been chosen and made, the local authority is released from its duty to secure education provision for the child. Local authorities will still have a duty to check the suitability of home education and review the education, health and care plan at least annually. If, at any point, the local authority considers that home education is no longer suitable, it should intervene to support the child by taking appropriate action.

On requiring access to venues for taking public exams, I acknowledge that this is an issue of concern to noble Lords and to parents, as we have heard. Amendment 312, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendments 383 and 426, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, focus on access to examinations for home-educated children. Amendment 312 would place a duty on local authorities to secure an examination centre within a reasonable distance for children eligible for inclusion on children not in school registers. Amendment 383 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to provide parity of exam fee support and access to past exam papers for home-educated children, as compared to children attending maintained schools. Amendment 426 would oblige private schools to let home-educated children sit exams on their premises.

Parents who choose to home-educate assume full responsibility for planning where to access examinations. The Joint Council for Qualifications website provides information on the nearest exam centres, and parents can ask centres to accommodate their child. Home-educated students can access past exam papers to support exam preparation. I recognise the noble Lord’s concerns, and I appreciated his willingness to discuss this in more detail during the meeting in July. It is certainly possible to think about how we could support parents in finding access to exam centres, in the way noble Lords have discussed, without placing the type of requirement on local authorities suggested by these amendments.

With regards to Amendment 426, as with state-funded schools, if a private school wishes to support private candidates, that is a choice for the school’s management. It is not for government to micromanage the operations of private enterprises in the way suggested.

Amendment 314, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, would place a duty on local authorities to build and maintain positive relationships with home-educating families, including through events, and to ensure that staff have appropriate training and experience. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has already identified, it is quite difficult for government to legislate for good relationships, but I can reassure the noble Lord that an expectation for local authorities to build positive and respectful relationships with home-educating families, underpinned by well-trained and knowledgeable staff, is set out in existing departmental guidance. However, I know that he and others are concerned by reports from some home educators that local authorities are not following this guidance. The department does take seriously any complaints received about the conduct of local authorities, as I suggested earlier today. If the Secretary of State is satisfied that a local authority is acting unreasonably, she can intervene using the powers available to her under Section 496 of the Education Act.

Amendment 315, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would prohibit the commencement of proceedings for a school attendance order if a parent has requested support. Although we welcome local authority support, allowing a request for support to halt legal action, even when the education provided is plainly unsuitable, would create a system that is open to abuse, delaying necessary intervention and potentially allowing children to be in unsuitable education for a prolonged period.

Amendments 390, 401, 402, 407, 411, 413, 419 and 422, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to provide financial incentives or reimbursements, for instance in the form of tax breaks for home-educating families. Although I recognise that home education can be a significant undertaking, the Government’s view is clear that parents who choose to educate children at home bear the financial responsibility for doing so, because a state-funded place is available for those children.

Amendment 396, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, aims to require the Government to fund independent academic research into effective home-education practices, with results published every three years. The data collected from children not in school registers will be a good and suitable vehicle for analysis and research into factors concerning home education. This is already occurring through the Department for Education’s existing data collection, which began in autumn 2022. It will be strengthened through improved data quality and by the statutory provisions for sharing data with the Secretary of State when the Bill’s measures come into force. Aggregate data will be published on an annual basis, subject to appropriate data-protection protocols. This will support the carrying out of some of the research that noble Lords have identified into the nature and success of home education.

Finally, Amendment 410, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would require the Secretary of State to establish a public-broadcast service which provides national curriculum-aligned educational content for home-educating families. As noble Lords are aware, there are already a wide range of educational resources which home-educating families can access, both paid for and free of charge. I am not sure it would be a reasonable or legitimate use of taxpayers’ money to develop a TV station in the way in which the noble Lord has asked for.

I hope that I have been able to provide some assurances and further information and that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s response to my amendments, but may I pick up briefly the question of exam centres for home-educated children? The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, was kind enough in early 2024 to allow me to start exploring what was required to reverse the trend that we have seen for many years of a reduction in availability of exam centres. This was rudely interrupted in July—sadly, for us—but it was clear to me that there was no lack of good will.

We have a collection of about half a dozen organisations, each of which has sets of individual requirements and ways of looking at things that do not quite mesh and that make it difficult for a school to continue the provision. This includes the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. One of the great difficulties is that, if you allow any outside candidate, you have to admit all outside candidates, and if any of them have special needs and require particular provision in separate rooms and you do not have that, you do not know where to provide it and you do not have the budget for the staffing, you just say, “We cannot do this because we cannot handle the exceptional circumstances”. It is a question of getting people together and saying, “We, the Government, have an objective: we want home-educated children to have reasonable access to exam centres. Please sit down together, sort out your differences and give us the answer”. And they would, because it is perfectly possible; it just requires a series of small compromises.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am not convinced that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is the reason why there are difficulties in the way that the noble Lord outlined, but I take his point that we could make progress on this were there to be some brokering of arrangements. I would be willing to give further consideration to information about access to examinations and how to overcome some of the issues.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and I appreciate my noble friend the Minister’s sympathetic response. Perhaps I could discuss with her later some aspects of the approach to marginalised parents. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 309.

--- Later in debate ---

With regard to the revised, shortened amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, there is an important balance to be struck. Of course one can argue about timing and the number of days, but, if a child is not getting any education, it is incredibly important that this is addressed in the most timely way possible.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

To continue where the noble Baroness finished, a child receiving unsuitable education for as little as a day could be detrimental for their educational development. The measures in the Bill seek to make this process more efficient, minimising the time in which a child may be receiving unsuitable education.

We have heard many speeches that highlight the rights of parents to educate their children how they wish. Parental choice is important, but it is crucial to remember that with rights come responsibilities. All children have a right to a suitable education, and parents have a responsibility to secure that education for their children. Where parents fail in this responsibility, there must be a consequence for the parent and a swift route to suitable education for the child.

The amendments in this group are focused on the school attendance order process. I turn first to address the opposition from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to Clause 32 standing part of the Bill. We believe that Clause 32 is essential. Without it, local authorities would have no power to act when parents refuse to comply with the children not in school registration duties, or where a child is not receiving a suitable education. Clause 32 allows local authorities to require school attendance where a child is subject to child protection investigations or plans and where school is deemed to be in the child’s best interests. This is a vital safeguard for some of our most vulnerable children.

As part of school attendance order proceedings, local authorities will be empowered to request to visit the child inside their home, so that they can fully consider the environment in which home education is being provided. Parents have the right to refuse the local authority’s request. If access is not given, this will be a relevant factor for the local authority to consider when deciding whether to serve an order.

The clause strengthens the current system by introducing timelines to make enforcement more efficient and to reduce prolonged periods in unsuitable education. It allows parents convicted of breaching a school attendance order to be prosecuted again if they continue to breach it, without requiring local authorities to restart the enforcement process. Aligning school attendance order fines with attendance fines will further incentivise parents to ensure children are registered at, and continue to be registered at, the named school.

I turn to Amendment 333A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking, and Amendment 334, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Amendment 334 seeks to make the issuing of a preliminary notice when a child is not receiving suitable education, or when home education is not in the best interests of an eligible child, a discretionary act for local authorities. I will not respond to Amendment 333A, as I had intended to, given what my noble friend said. Making the process discretionary would create inconsistency. A mandatory preliminary notice ensures that there is definitive action when a local authority has reasons to believe that home education is not suitable for, or not in the best interests of, an eligible child.

Amendment 335, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would require support to be offered before a preliminary notice could be issued. In cases where concerns about the suitability of education are serious or urgent, local authorities must be able to act without delay. Making support a legal precondition could inadvertently shield unsuitable provision from scrutiny. However, I appreciate that the noble Lord is concerned that a formal notice can be daunting for a parent to receive. We will consider what further guidance can be issued to parents and local authorities as part of the implementation of these measures to ensure that they can engage confidently with the process.

Amendments 338 and 341, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to prevent local authorities considering whether it would be in an eligible child’s best interests for them to receive education by regular school attendance as part of the preliminary notice for school attendance orders. It is important for me to explain the reasoning behind the best interests test in this context. Currently, local authorities have no recourse to require a child on a child protection plan or inquiry to attend school unless they can identify that the child is receiving unsuitable education. The best interests test requires local authorities to take action when they identify children subject to child protection inquiries or plans whose interests would be best served by regularly attending school, regardless of whether the education provided at home is considered suitable. Statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, provides clarity on what making best interests decisions means and will be further updated as part of the implementation of these measures.

Amendments 339 and 340, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to remove or limit the ability of the local authority to issue a preliminary notice when a child is subject to an active Section 47 child protection inquiry. Local authorities will be able to issue a preliminary notice under the relevant subsection only if it appears to them that the child subject to the Section 47 inquiry is not regularly attending school and that it would be in that child’s best interests to do so. A preliminary notice will not automatically result in a school attendance order.

It is also important to remember that such inquiries take place because Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 puts a duty on local authorities to make inquiries where it considers that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. These formal inquiries are not initiated lightly; their use signals serious concerns about a child’s welfare. Section 47 inquiries should not be initiated based purely on the fact that a parent is home-educating, as we are clear that home education is not in itself an inherent safeguarding risk. It is vital that local authorities have the means to gather information on the circumstances of at-risk children and determine whether their interests would be better served by regularly attending school.

Amendments 342 and 346, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and Amendments 336, 337, 343, 344, 345 and 347, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to remove the ability of local authorities to issue a preliminary notice when a parent has not provided information, or has provided incorrect information, for a children not in school register. This power is discretionary, and local authorities should not normally issue a preliminary notice in response to a genuine error by a parent but instead continue informal inquiries. However, without a consequence on parents for not providing the required information, the duty on them to provide information would be, in effect, redundant. This duty on parents is necessary to ensure that local authorities have the required information to ensure that education is suitable and safe. Local authorities must act promptly once it appears that action should be taken so there is no delay in providing appropriate support to children who need it. The timeframes in the school attendance order process strike the right balance between urgency and operational practicality. Removing them could lead to inconsistent and slower responses across different authorities, resulting in children potentially spending more time in unsuitable education.

I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, does not seek to press his Amendment 365. It would perhaps be best for me to deal with the set of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wei—which concern penalties for parents in a range of circumstances—by writing to noble Lords with some assurances about each of the amendments, rather than going through them all in this debate.

Finally, I address the stand part notice from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, which seeks to remove Clause 35 from the Bill. Clause 35 introduces Schedule 2, which makes consequential amendments to existing legislation so that the new school attendance order process for local authorities in England and Wales is reflected in the Children Act 1989, the Education Act 1996 and other relevant legislation. The clause is necessary to ensure proper functioning of the process, and I urge that it stands part of the Bill.

For the reasons I have outlined, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments, and I urge that Clauses 32 and 35 stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I am grateful, as ever, for the Minister’s responses, but I would be additionally grateful if she could write to me, between now and Report, to give me a much clearer idea of what the parental experience will be. For example, when faced with a best interests determination by a local authority that the parents consider to be seriously damaging to their child, how do they appeal it? What is the process for taking that through? Assuming that the local authority has it wrong, what is the full process that results in the parents being able to help the local authority understand the reality of their child’s circumstances and where their best interests really lie. With all the help that has been given, I still fail to get a grip on what that process will be and will feel like, and I would love to share that with home educators.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Is the noble Lord clear that the best interests requirement relates to cases where children are subject to child protection inquiries or plans?

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

Yes. It is only in about half of Section 47 where one would judge that that is a real problem. I understand and accept what the Government are saying about the need not to find that we are not covering children whom we need to cover, and that means that there are children going through the system for whom the dangers are not absolute, but if, for example, the child has deep school anxiety, or has really been bullied in the school, or the school has taken against them for some other reason and they have a horrid experience, and the local authority says, “Go back in”, what is the experience of the parent in appealing that? I do not have the grip on the details of the system that I would like.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I will write about that specific point.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, provided that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, does not want to make any more interventions, I will take this opportunity to close the debate.

Your Lordships heard that I was repenting; I pleaded guilty to overreach. I did not seek to press this amendment, but because an enormous number of amendments are listed after Amendment 333A, I felt it was right that all Members should have an opportunity to speak to any of the amendments in this group. Having said that, I have no hesitation in withdrawing this amendment and thanking my noble friend the Minister for her very careful and adequate replies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

I join my noble friend Lady Whitaker on removing the threat of imprisonment: it would be entirely inappropriate, and there are enough people already in prison.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, as we continue to debate school attendance orders, we must never lose sight of the child at the heart of this. A child gets one chance at an education, and that is why our processes must act swiftly, decisively and in the best interests of the child.

Amendments 348, 349, 350 to 352, 358, 362, 363 and 367 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 357 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, look to remove or alter the ability for a school attendance order to be served. Amendment 348 seeks to remove the entire school attendance order section. I accept that that may not be the purpose or intention of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, so let me move on to Amendment 349, which would mean that a local authority could serve an order on parents of children who had historically been subject to a Section 47 child protection inquiry or plan, even if this is no longer the case and the child is receiving a suitable education. It would be disproportionate for a local authority to be able to serve an order in these situations. If a Section 47 inquiry has concluded and not resulted in a child protection plan, parents will not be required to demonstrate that home education is in their child’s best interests. If the notice was also issued on the grounds that the local authority was not satisfied as to the suitability of education, the parent would still be required to demonstrate that the home education is suitable.

Amendment 350 would require local authorities to consider only the major educational settings used by a child, and Amendment 351 would prevent the consideration of where the child lives as part of the decision to serve a school attendance order. Settings where the child is educated are an important part of the local authority’s suitability assessment. Children attending unsafe or otherwise unsuitable settings are unlikely to be receiving an overall suitable education. It is essential that local authorities can identify where this is the case and take action.

Turning to Amendment 352, I hope the noble Lord is reassured to know that the wording in new Section 436I under the Bill does not require local authorities to make financial inquiries of families as part of the school attendance order process. Amendment 357 calls for local authorities to provide formal reasons whenever a school attendance order is issued. Local authorities are already subject to public law duties, and this includes providing reasons for decisions. Statutory guidance will ensure that local authorities are given clear advice and expectations on these matters.

Amendments 358, 363 and 367 would prevent a school attendance order being enforced or require it to be revoked should a child no longer live in the jurisdiction. This would be a significant loophole. A parent could remove a child from the jurisdiction temporarily, or claim to have done so, and thereby avoid compliance. Ultimately, this amendment is unnecessary because, once such an order is made, there are already mechanisms for parents to apply for it to be varied or revoked should they move school or demonstrate that suitable education is to be provided outside school.

Amendment 362 seeks to ensure that, if a parent has asked that a private school is named in a school attendance order, an order will not be issued and instead education will be deemed as suitable. The intention behind this amendment is to prevent a parent having to pay unaffordable bills if their financial circumstances change. As previously mentioned, the parent can simply apply to the local authority to have the order amended to name another school if they can no longer afford the fees of the school named in the order.

Amendments 356 and 359 seek to remove timelines on parts of the school attendance order process. I understand that the noble Lord’s intention is to probe whether sufficient time is built into the process for informing a school when it is to be named in a school attendance order. I can reassure noble Lords that it is. New Section 436L in the Bill outlines that a local authority must serve a school nomination notice on a school which it intends to name in an order. If the school disagrees with the decision, it has 10 school days to make an application to the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers for a direction.

Amendments 349A and 362A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, seek to prevent a school attendance order being issued to any child who has an education, health and care plan, experiences emotionally based school avoidance or is eligible for special educational needs support. All children deserve a suitable education. School attendance orders therefore need to apply to all children. It would not be practical to remove that option from local authorities for particular children. That would limit the available courses of action to secure a child’s education. A local authority should ensure that the school named in an order is right for the needs of the child in question. We recognise that some pupils will be impacted by issues such as emotionally based school avoidance. Our guidance is clear that schools should work with the child and their family to remove barriers to attendance and build strong and trusting relationships.

Amendments 364 and 391, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, and Amendment 367A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking, seek to amend the process for revoking a school attendance order. Amendment 364 would require a local authority to establish and consult a panel that includes home-educating parents when considering a revocation request. This would be wholly inappropriate. To come to a decision on whether to revoke an order, it is likely that the local authority will need to consider a range of information about the child’s education and personal circumstances. I cannot imagine that many parents would want this sort of sensitive information shared with a jury of other parents.

Amendment 391 seeks to give the parent the right to have their case heard by a jury trial if their child has been required to attend school through a school attendance order. The existing process affords sufficient opportunity for parents to demonstrate that they are providing a suitable education and therefore should not be required to send their child to a named school.

Do I understand correctly that my noble friend Lord Hacking is not now pushing Amendment 367A?

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

Yes.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Right. I will turn then to Amendments 368, tabled by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, and Amendment 369, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei. These amendments seek to amend the maximum fine for a breach of a school attendance order. I understand that the prospect of fines is worrying for parents. However, a parent runs the risk of a fine only if they breach the order. The consequence of breaching a school attendance order must be brought in line with the offence of unauthorised school absences. This removes the perverse incentive for a parent to remove their child from school under the guise of home education to avoid higher school attendance fines.

Amendment 371, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would require the court to consider the best interests of the child when sentencing a parent for breaching a school attendance order. Courts in England and Wales must already consider the impact on the child when determining sentences, as per Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

There is a series of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, that have not been addressed in the debate. As I did previously, I will write to noble Lords responding to those amendments. I hope that, given the assurances that I have provided, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment, and other noble Lords will not move theirs.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, that was a thoroughly satisfactory set of answers. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, this group again covers a large number of very technical amendments. Some of them appear to me to be at the more speculative rather than the probing end of the spectrum. They highlight a number of issues in relation to home-educating families and home visits, but the majority of these suggestions, as put in these amendments, would be very challenging for any Government to justify in terms of the potential resources that would be required to implement them.

My noble friend Lord Lucas rightly raised the issues around home visits and the pressure that they put on families. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that local authorities understand that too and would use those powers when necessary, and always in the best interests of the child. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, the voice of the child is key in creating a supportive, responsive and effective safeguarding and educational environment. I believe that the best way for a local authority to ensure that a child’s education is both suitable and safe is to meet with the child in the child’s home. We want to ensure that local authorities are able to capture and appropriately consider the views of children, so advice on how to conduct these visits sensitively, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, rightly suggested is required, will be a key focus of our statutory guidance.

In terms of the ask on parents, we have aimed for this to be proportionate and at the right intervals. The purpose is to minimise the duration any child is in receipt of unsuitable education. The compulsory information is what is required for a local authority to undertake existing responsibilities related to education suitability and safeguarding. It is not intended to be disruptive to the parents, who will still be able to focus on providing a suitable education for their child.

The amendments in this group seek to make changes to the ability of a local authority to request to visit the home and to limit the potential impact on home-educating families. They also seek to make provision concerning how home educators may engage with and would like to be treated by national and local government.

I am going to suggest that the amendments brought by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, beginning with Amendment 406, might be suitable for me to write to noble Lords about. Several of them fall within the category defined by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, as being at the “speculative end” of the spectrum. I hope I would be able to either reassure noble Lords or identify why they would not be suitable to be carried forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Storey, makes a broader point with respect to Amendment 417 about holidays, and I am sure this is something that we cannot solve here this evening, but I recognise the concerns that parents have.

I will deal with the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Amendment 353 seeks to remove the local authority’s power to request to visit a child at home to determine whether a school attendance order should be served. I hope I have already identified the approach that we will expect local authorities to take with respect to visits. This ability to request to visit the child at home allows the local authority to see the environment in which home education is being provided and to meet the child. Without this, local authorities may not be able to form a comprehensive view of whether the home environment is conducive to the child’s education. Parents will be able to refuse such a request, but, if they do, the local authority must consider this refusal to be a relevant factor when determining whether to issue a school attendance order.

Amendments 354 and 355 would require a local authority to obtain a court order to request to visit a child at home and to consider a child’s reaction to persons in authority when determining whether to serve a school attendance order. A court order would be unnecessary as the local authority would only be making a request, which parents have a right to refuse. On the point about sensitivity, though, I can assure noble Lords that our statutory guidance will provide further steers to help local authorities sensitively conduct visits, and we will consider whether additional support is needed, such as training for local authority staff.

I hope that I have assured noble Lords that the ability to request a visit is an important opportunity for the local authority, but that these visits will be carried out sensitively, and, if necessary, we will provide further statutory guidance on how that should happen. I will respond to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Wei, in writing to noble Lords.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I am grateful for the Minister’s response to my amendments. I would be grateful for a brief response to the amendments put down by my noble friend Lord Wei—just a confirmation, I suspect, when it comes to Amendment 387, of the recognition that there is a lot to say about the methodology of home education and the curriculum, and similarly, on Amendment 393, confirmation that the timing of educational progress, which should in principle be respected, can form part of a suitable education.

I have met a very capable young Oxford undergraduate who did not begin to write until they were 13. Having learned entirely through other methods and found writing extremely difficult, he was able to move on to a keyboard aged 13 and get himself eventually to Oxford. The generality, which is picked up in my noble friend’s amendment, of not beginning formal education until seven is very common on the continent. There are structures which do not impose reading, writing and arithmetic before that age and which succeed on a national level.

The understanding that the Government recognise that there are other routes to educational success, and that this is something that local authorities do not understand, is of general interest, rather more so than some of my noble friend’s more focused amendments.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

On those points, I hope I can reassure the noble Lord that the law is already clear. We have discussed during the course of the debate that parents have the right to educate their children using the methods, approaches and content they think best, provided that the education being received is suitable and safe. The point, though, is that local authorities must be able to assess that education to establish whether or not it is. The Bill does not give local authorities any additional powers to regulate the content of home education.

On the point about the nature of education, we believe that a child must be provided with a suitable education from the age of five. Of course, the point about home education is that it would be up to parents, assuming that that education is suitable, to determine what sort of education was being provided to a child of five.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, as we are in the closing straight. Can the Government confirm that they accept that flexibility of approach is something that will happen? If we look laterally—says the dyslexic—at special educational needs, that is often what is required there. Some of the problems come from the fact that there is a structure that one is supposed to be doing, but not everybody learns like that. Can the Government confirm that this is something which should be worked across the education system?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I have just confirmed that, and we have talked about it at various different times with respect to home education. I completely accept that one of the reasons why parents want to home-educate is to provide different and more flexible approaches to the way in which children learn. The most appropriate methods for learning and teaching will have to be at the heart of not just the Government’s reforms to special educational needs and disabilities but the very hard work that teachers and schools do for those children.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments relate to children, particularly those with education, health and care plans, and the use of school attendance orders. If I understood correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, argued through amendments in earlier groups and Amendments 359A and 366A in this group that these children should be excluded from the school attendance order regime. I outlined my concerns, which remain the same, about introducing inconsistency into a system where we already have incredible variability in how school attendance orders are used.

I have spoken to families who have a child with an education, health and care plan who are considering educating them at home. They have expressed concerns that the local authority can be particularly resistant to that because of the financial costs, which are sometimes related to the physical and medical therapies—health therapies—that a child might need. It would help if the Minister could comment on those fears. Equally, a child in receipt of an EHCP clearly has more complicated educational needs and it is entirely reasonable that the local authority should consider that carefully and ensure that the parents are able to deliver on their wish to support their child at home.

I confess I am unclear what material difference Amendment 360 would make to the Bill, but maybe the Minister will shed light.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, as I said previously, the school attendance order process is an existing process that is absolutely essential to provide children in unsuitable education a route to suitable education through regular attendance at a school.

In speaking to the amendments in group 15, I turn to Amendments 360 and 361, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. They seek to require a local authority to review rather than amend an education, health and care plan where the authority is required to serve a school attendance order in respect of a child and the plan does not specify the name of a school. If a local authority is serving a school attendance order, it has determined that the child is not receiving a suitable education and that the situation must be resolved. In this situation, it is right that the education, health and care plan be amended to name a school and that the school attendance order reflect this. This will enable the child to be enrolled in that school without delay.

The noble Lord may be concerned that parents will not have the opportunity to influence the school named in the order and the education, health and care plan. I reassure him that local authorities will still be required to follow the processes outlined in Regulation 22 of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014. These regulations require that local authorities send parents a notice outlining the changes to the plan. Additionally, the child’s parents can request a review of the plan at any point if they believe that the school is not meeting their child’s needs.

Amendment 366, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would remove the right to refer questions on school attendance orders in Wales to Welsh Ministers and delete the clause preserving the existing education, health and care plan framework. Parents must have a right to appeal a local authority decision to refuse to revoke a school attendance order, regardless of whether that local authority is in England or Wales. The mirror provisions in the Bill reflect our commitment to making the process as consistent as possible for families in both nations.

As previously mentioned, parents of children on education, health and care plans already have recourse to have the school on a school attendance order amended. The amendment would mean that duplicate processes would run concurrently, potentially resulting in confusion for local authorities, parents and schools.

I turn now to Amendments 359A and 366A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. All children deserve a suitable education. School attendance orders therefore need to apply to all children. It would not be practical to remove that option from local authorities for particular children, limiting the available courses of action to secure a child’s education. A local authority should ensure that the school named in an order is right for the needs of the child in question.

We recognise, as I said earlier, that some pupils will be impacted by issues such as emotionally based school avoidance. Our guidance is clear that schools should work with the child and their family to remove barriers to attendance and build strong and trusting relationships. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I will speak to this amendment in group 16, which is about the right to home-educate. I reiterate—it feels right to be doing this at the end of this debate, as I did at the start—that parents have the right to educate their child in the way that best suits their needs, if that education is suitable. The Bill does not change that.

Amendment 378, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to protect a parent’s right to home-educate in the event of a national emergency or an authoritarian Government. First, this amendment would be ineffective, as Parliament is sovereign. Any law passed by a current Parliament can be changed or repealed by a future Parliament. However, existing legislation is clear that most parents have the right to educate their child otherwise than at school provided that the education their child receives is both safe and suitable. This Government support that right. I hope that, on that basis of reassurance, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 378 withdrawn.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, all the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, ably presented by my noble friend Lord Lucas, seek exemptions from or exceptions to the basic principle that there should be a register of children not in school. Rightly, my noble friend stressed the importance of the relationship between the local authority and home-educating parents. As other noble Lords pointed out, the Government need to take great care in this legislation so that the requirements set out in the Bill do not inadvertently damage that relationship and potential trust.

Having said that, I cannot support these amendments and their aim to find exemptions. First, at its simplest, the point of the register is to ensure that a local authority knows which children are not in school and, obviously, the amendments would undermine that. Secondly, one of the key points of the register, as I understand it, is that it would allow home-educating parents who need support from the local authority to access that support. Again, excluding these children would prevent that. Finally, these amendments assume that in these conditions it may indeed be preferable to educate the child at home. Even if this is the case in the majority, if not the vast majority, of cases, it remains reasonable and proportionate to record that that child is not in school.

With regard to Amendments 234 and 238, my noble friend Lord Lucas raised the important point of principle that the information collected should be proportionate, which, in simple terms, means that the local authority needs to actually use that information, as my noble friend said in his opening remarks, rather than just record it. The Government’s proposals for the information collected go a lot further than the legislation we brought forward in 2022. I share the doubts of my noble friend Lord Lucas and other noble Lords as to whether it is all necessary.

Going back to the point about the relationship between the local authority and parents, a good test for this legislation, and one I tried to use when we debated the 2022 Bill, is that the legislation needs to feel fair to parents. There is a risk that the amount of information and detail being requested could feel unfair and damage that relationship with the local authority, which is so important. I hope very much that when the noble Baroness closes, she will be able to reassure the Committee that that is not the case.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Wei, Lord Lucas and Lord Crisp, my noble friend Lord Hacking and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for taking time over the summer to meet my officials. Having the opportunity to discuss in detail with noble Lords how the provisions for children not in school are intended to work in practice was extremely beneficial and instructive. I am giving careful consideration to some of the finer details of the provisions with which noble Lords have indicated that they are not wholly satisfied.

I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that in government we have worked well and closely with home educators, who are rightly challenging on many of the issues that noble Lords have raised in the debate. Just to be completely clear, we know that the home education community is diverse and varied. Home education can take place in all walks of life, in cities or the countryside, and be delivered by those with professional teaching experience and those without. It often delivers an excellent education to children, but it is important that the registers work as intended. They should not encroach on the ability to home-educate.

I have said previously in these debates and will continue to say that we wholly recognise the right of parents to educate their children outside schools. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said, it must be possible for local authorities to identify all children not in school to ensure that they are receiving a full-time, suitable education. That oversight should be underpinned by local authorities engaging positively with home educators. That is why the Bill also places a new duty on local authorities to provide advice and information when requested to do so by parents. The registers should give us a clearer picture of not only how and where children are being educated but also how local authorities engage with and support children not in school and their families. This information will support the department to identify best practice and consider how it can potentially be replicated across authorities to build strong, trusting relationships with parents.

I recognise the point made by several noble Lords that it is important that we ensure that these relationships are maintained and built on the basis of trust and a sense that what is being asked for by the Government is reasonable. We will, as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said, use this information to support and direct local authorities to ensure that that is happening, not, as I know some people fear, to prevent parents from home-educating, but to make sure that that relationship is based on a recognition of the best interests of children and of the right of parents to educate their children at home as long as they are providing a suitable education in doing that. The department will and has stepped in where local authority practice is wrong or overbearing.

Speaking in particular on the amendments in group one, these amendments seek to limit which children must be registered on local authority children not in school registers and to reduce the mandatory information that is requested from parents for the registers. This group seeks to do that on account of evidence provided by the parents or the circumstances of the child or parents. I will respond first to all the amendments dealing with which children should be included on registers: Amendments 231, 232, 233, 318, 321 and 322. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, a key objective of the registers is to aid local authorities in their existing duty to identify, as far as possible, all children in their areas who are not registered pupils in school and who are not receiving a suitable full-time education. Exempting eligible children from inclusion increases the risk of a local authority failing to identify a child who may be receiving an unsuitable education.

While I do not agree with the amendments, I appreciate the intention behind them, but I am afraid that the logic does not track even in terms of the arguments made by noble Lords. For example, to exempt children of parents with formal teaching qualifications from registration, as per Amendment 233, or children of parents who have submitted a portfolio annually demonstrating suitable education, as per Amendment 231, the local authority would need to know of the children and to record details of their parents, which might be even more cumbersome than the requirements that this legislation is asking for.

Amendments 318 and 322 seek to exempt children from rural areas, unless safeguarding concerns are present, or children from nomadic families as long as education is provided. This would still require the local authority having knowledge of these children in order to make these assessments. A registration system is the obvious solution to collect an appropriate level of information about a child’s circumstances, as my noble friend Lady Whitaker identified.

Amendment 231 seeks exemption for inclusion in the registers should the parent have previously demonstrated suitable education through an annual portfolio, while Amendment 232 seeks exemption if the parent has previously home-educated a child who progressed to university, employment or vocational training. Just because a parent has previously demonstrated suitable education, has previously home-educated a child who progressed to further or higher education, or holds certain qualifications, it does not necessarily follow that the child will receive a suitable education indefinitely or at all. Furthermore, exempting children on the basis of one measure of ability, such as achieving the status of a chess grandmaster, as per Amendment 321, offers little reassurance that the child is in suitable education overall or is safe.

I turn now to the amendments in this grouping concerning the mandatory information that is requested from parents to be held on local authority registers: Amendments 234 and 238. We will, in our debates on later groups, talk further about the nature of this information. The information required of parents is necessary to build an accurate understanding of who is involved in a child’s education and where this education is taking place. Let me be absolutely clear: the only information required to be held on registers is information which is easily available to parents and obtainable by local authorities and which is considered necessary for ascertaining suitability of education and safety of the child. This includes basic information such as the child’s name, date of birth and address, as well as high-level details of education provided by the parent and others. We will go into this in more detail but, to be absolutely clear in relation to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, of course this would not require daily, weekly or even monthly reports from parents. That is absolutely not the intention here. We do not believe that this basic information is overly burdensome for parents to provide or for local authorities to request and maintain.

Amendment 234, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would mean that parents would not be under a duty to provide information for registers. We know that many local authorities already maintain registers and that some parents voluntarily provide information for these, but the status quo is not good enough. It is currently too easy for children to slip under the radar. If a child has never attended a school or has recently moved to a new local authority area, for example, the local authority may be unaware that the child is in its area and not attending school. We need to be certain that local authorities are aware of all children not in school in their areas so that they can identify which children are missing education and are therefore in need of support. A parental duty to give information is the only way to achieve this. This requirement is proportionate and brings the process in England and Wales to the same level as that in the majority of other countries. In some cases, it would in fact be much less intrusive and much more supportive of home education than in many other countries.

I hope that noble Lords will permit me a brief digression to clarify a point of confusion—I know that this has been raised by and is concerning parents—regarding the consequence for parents failing to provide information for registers. If a parent does not supply the required information, they are not subject to a fine. Instead, the consequence of failing to provide information is that the local authority may, at its discretion, issue a notice requiring the parent to satisfy the local authority that their child is receiving a suitable education.

As is the case now, should the parent fail to do this and it is expedient for the child to attend school, the local authority must then issue a school attendance order, requiring the child to attend school. If the parent breaches that order and cannot prove in court that the child is being suitably educated, only then will they be found guilty of an offence and could be subject to a fine imposed at the magistrates’ court’s discretion. Again, it is important to reiterate that the school attendance order process that would be used here is an existing process and that the fines for breaching an order are completely avoidable through compliance. With this in mind, the number of families ultimately subject to a fine for breaching an order will be low compared to the overall number of orders issued.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have heard, the amendments in this group concern the sharing and protection of information on the registers. I can completely understand concerns about the collection and processing of data, and I hope to provide in my response some of the reassurances that noble Lords seek. But we must also be clear that we must not make them a barrier to legitimate information sharing. The recording and sharing of relevant information on children can be life-saving and, as we have discussed, children not in school registers will support local authorities to keep accurate records of eligible children, identifying those who require support and facilitating better co-ordination between support services, as well as enabling them to fulfil the requirement to understand where children are receiving education outside school.

Amendment 235, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to ensure that local authorities are not required to collect information on their registers that would be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Our published ECHR memorandum outlines the position on this, and we are confident that the provisions in the Bill are compatible.

I turn to Amendments 236 and 236A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 254A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. As with Amendment 238, which I spoke to on the previous group, these amendments seek to place exemptions on the requirement for registers to contain certain information on the child’s parents. I have outlined why that information is vital, but I appreciate that noble Lords have tabled these amendments based on concerns that some parents are estranged from their families for reasons such as domestic abuse. Recognising that concern, we have engaged with organisations that support domestic abuse survivors on our proposals and will continue to do so as part of their implementation.

Organisations like Women’s Aid have long called for the introduction of children not in school registers. Indeed, this is one of the recommendations it has made as part of its Nineteen More Child Homicides report published in June this year. If a parent could pose a risk to the child, it is even more crucial that authorities have this information. Holding information such as where the parent lives and whether they are providing education to the child, as well as time spent in such education, could help the local authority to identify the frequency and nature of the contact the child has with the parent. This could feed into a local authority’s assessment of whether a child is at risk of harm or is likely to be receiving an unsuitable education, so that further action can be taken if needed. Without evidence that a child may be at risk, it is difficult for authorities to intervene.

But I understand the concerns of parents, and I want to respond to that. Just to be clear, parents who have fled domestic abuse should be reassured that they will not be required to seek out the details of the other parent. They need to provide only the information that they know. But I will be clear about how we can ensure that the register will not reveal, for example, the whereabouts of a parent who has escaped abuse. Data protection protocols will help to ensure that all those on the register are safe. Specifically, in cases where a known abuser has made a subject access request regarding their child, the local authority, as data controller, can make determinations, considering the facts of the case, including safeguarding concerns.

I and my colleagues in the other place are clear on the importance of ensuring that all appropriate safeguards can be in place for victims of domestic abuse. We will continue to work with organisations with expertise in domestic abuse to ensure that all necessary protections can be built into the guidance that we will produce.

Linked to this but on a slightly different issue, Amendment 266, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, and Amendment 265, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, concern information from local authority registers being published. Let me be clear that local authorities will not be able to publish from their registers the name or address of an eligible child or their parent or any information that could lead to their identities being deduced. The Bill contains a provision in new Section 436C(5) explicitly preventing it. However, it is important that local authorities can publish information relating to their home education cohorts—in fact, I think that in later groups some noble Lords will be asking for further information along these lines—in terms of numbers, reasons for home education, and demographics. That will aid transparency in terms of how each local authority is undertaking its duties. We will ensure that regulations made in relation to this setting out whether and how registered details may be published will be subject to public consultation, and they will also be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Amendment 267 in the name of my noble friend Lady Whitaker and Amendment 273 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would require the destruction of all data in relation to a child held on children not in school registers upon that child turning 18 or re-enrolling in school. I assure noble Lords that data protection laws are clear that data must not be kept longer than necessary and must be retained only when there is a lawful basis. Entries on the register will therefore be deleted prior to a child turning 18 as a child is eligible to be included on the register only if they are of compulsory school age. As my noble friend alluded to, some information may need to be retained on other local authority records for a longer period; for example, a looked-after child remains with their local authority until they are 25, and it is crucial to hold some historical information as part of education and safeguarding inquiries. Current laws already allow this.

Amendment 275, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, and Amendments 268 and 375, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to ensure that parents are notified of any data breaches that occur as part of the children not in school measures and are able to claim compensation, and that local authorities are liable for the consequences of breaches. UK GDPR already sets out that a local authority must report a notifiable personal data breach to the Information Commissioner’s Office within 72 hours and to the affected individuals “without undue delay” where there is high risk that they are adversely affected by the breach. Families who have suffered damage as a result have a right to claim compensation from the local authority, which may also face fines or regulatory action.

Amendment 305, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendments 272 and 328, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to restrict or remove the powers relating to the use and sharing of data on the registers. As I suggested earlier, local authorities and the department need to collate and share register information, often at speed, with relevant persons, to fulfil duties related to the education, safeguarding or welfare of a child. Requiring written parental consent in every case, as Amendment 272 would do, would potentially prevent children receiving support in situations where swift action is vital. New Section 436F inserted by the Bill makes it clear with whom data from the registers may be shared and under which circumstances.

For example, local authorities may share information with those persons and organisations listed in Section 11(1) of the Children Act 2004 if appropriate to do so for the purposes of promoting or safeguarding the education and welfare of children. These include organisations, such as the NHS, which are a central component of either local multi-agency safeguarding arrangements or national efforts to protect children. If there is information on registers that can aid these organisations in protecting or promoting the welfare of a child, I am sure noble Lords will agree that it is important that it is shared. In relation to Amendment 328, I reassure noble Lords that immigration authorities do not feature in any of these categories.

Amendment 297, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to remove the requirement for out-of-school education providers to provide local authorities with the names, dates of birth and home addresses of children who are attending their provision above a prescribed threshold. We will talk about the provider duty in more detail later but, in effect, this amendment would remove the provider duty, which is, we argue, crucial in supporting local authorities both to identify children who should be on registers but are not and to cross-check records for children already on registers. There is no way for local authorities to achieve this without asking for basic identifying information.

Amendment 504, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would delay the commencement of the children not in school registers until the National Cyber Security Centre or an equivalent body certifies them. The Government already conduct extensive internal and external assurance processes to ensure that systems are safe and secure before launch. To support local authorities in meeting their data protection obligations under the measures, we will issue guidance that promotes best practice for keeping parents’ and children’s information secure.

Finally, I turn to the stand part notice in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which would oppose Clause 33 standing part of the Bill. As I have outlined in responding to this group, Clause 33 ensures that the processing of personal information as required or enabled by the Bill does not contravene the Data Protection Act 2018. It promotes the highest standards of data security and transparency. I hope that that provides your Lordships—and parents—with some assurance. I also hope that noble Lords will feel able to agree that this clause should stand part of the Bill and that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will withdraw Amendment 235.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that thoughtful response. I will pick up anything with which I disagree—I did not notice anything —later.

I want to say just one thing on Amendment 504. The Government created this cybersecurity centre—because the risks, the techniques and the availability of those techniques are moving so quickly, particularly with artificial intelligence—so that the best possible expertise is available to government departments. Time and again, though, they do not use it. In a recent case with which I have been dealing, DSIT got a chunk of its vital core code developed in Romania. It is not secure to do that; you do not know what it is doing and who it is doing it for. The way in which devices were secured was not up to scratch either. This resource is there as part of government. It should be used by departments, which cannot in all reason keep up with the latest threat and techniques, to be sure of what they are doing when it comes to security. It really is the best thing that can be done, so I encourage the Minister to get the department to take advantage of that facility.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will keep my remarks brief and focus on my own amendments in this group as I know that we have a very ambitious target to complete today; that noble Lords came in early to do this; and that we have had a well-informed debate already. My Amendments 239, 243, 249 and 260 were supported and elegantly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, with support from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp.

Amendment 239 would remove the requirement to specify the time spent by each parent educating their child, which was described by your Lordships as potentially redundant information.

Amendment 243 would set a minimum threshold of six hours weekly to avoid parents having to record every piano lesson and burdening local authorities with a volume of information that they cannot realistically assess. It has many similarities to Amendment 254B. I would not quibble with the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, as his amendment was very well drafted, but the spirits of the two amendments have much in common.

Amendment 249 would exclude weekend and holiday activities so that we bring home-educated children into line with those at school, where we would not dream of asking how they spend their weekends and holidays. Again, we do not want every visit to the Royal Institution —however fascinating—or every swimming lesson being shared with the local authority.

Finally, Amendment 260—the “scoop it all up” amendment, as my noble friend Lady Berridge described it—seeks to remove the ability of the Secretary of State to require any additional information that they see fit to be included in the register. This is an important point of principle because it leaves the door completely open for a future Secretary of State to behave in a way that many of your Lordships might consider unreasonable and unfair. It is excessive—belt and braces—and the Minister may want to reconsider it.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a good debate on this group—interestingly, with some rather different perspectives on the nature of the extent to which information should be included on the register. Let me deal with the range of points, I hope, as reassuringly and informatively as I can.

Amendment 235A was introduced by my noble friend Lord Hacking, although it seems that it had several parents—I will try to respond to the principles of it—and Amendment 239 is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. These amendments would mean that registers would be required to contain the names and addresses of only the parents who are taking responsibility for the education of the child, rather than details of all parents of the child. Parents would also not need to provide information on how much time their child spends receiving education from each parent.

As I said in relation to Amendment 238 from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the reason why both parents’ details are needed is because, by law, each parent has an equal responsibility for securing a suitable education for their child. This remains the case even if a parent is not providing the education themselves and is instead securing other providers to do so. Although I understand the intention behind these amendments, I worry that they would result in local authorities being unable to obtain necessary information.

My noble friend Lord Hacking gave a harrowing example in relation to access to information on the registers. I had hoped that my comments in our debate on the previous group had given some assurances around the control of and requirements for confidentiality around the register, which will provide some reassurance on that. Additionally, I am concerned that Amendment 239 would make it more difficult for local authorities to identify children who may not be receiving a suitable full-time education. Without having the time that a parent spends educating their child on the registers, how are local authorities to know whether the six hours that a child spends at a supplementary school each week is just part of their education or their whole education?

In relation to Amendment 235A, what if no parent claims responsibility for the education of the child? Unfortunately, we must face the reality that some children in England and Wales are receiving no education at all from their parents or from anybody else. Where this is the case, how can local authorities even begin to intervene if they are missing basic information, such as an up-to-date address for both parents?

Amendments 240, 241 and 247, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to restrict or remove completely the requirement on parents to provide information on the amount of time their child spends receiving education from individuals other than the parent. I will come back in a moment to the point about hours and time, raised—appropriately—by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and my noble friend Lady Morris. But it is important that local authorities understand whether other persons are involved in the education of the child. This, alongside information on for how much time a child is educated by their parent, will support the authority to establish whether education is full-time or not and to fulfil their existing duty to identify children missing education. This is an important point, which the noble Lord, Lord Storey, also brought to our attention.

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

Will the Minister answer my supplementary question about whether the department or she have in mind a number of hours that make up full-time education that they are trying to get to through this process?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I said I will come to that—I am coming to it. I will also answer the other point about the annual report.

Once again, on this, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and other noble Lords for taking the time to meet my officials and to outline in detail their concerns about the nature of the information that we are requesting. I understand the concern not to limit the wide range of activities that effective home education may well involve, the range of different organisations that might be contributing to it and the burdens that might be placed. I reassure noble Lords that I am reflecting on the points raised.

Amendment 253, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to define what constitutes education for the purposes of for which activities parents must provide information on the registers. I anticipate that the noble Lord tabled this amendment to reduce parental burden, but it will actually do the reverse. It would bring a broad list of activities into scope of the duty to provide information, as any activity that results in the child learning would be classed as education. It is not the policy intention that registers will need to contain information on such a wide range of activities. The accepted definition of “education” is that it should contain elements of supervision and instruction that work towards defined objectives. This is supported by case law.

I recognise that noble Lords are concerned about the burden that the duty to provide information on a child’s education provision places on parents and local authorities. We will ensure that those burdens are kept as low as possible. Parents will not be required to give details on non-educational activities, for example, and we will outline this in detail in statutory guidance and, obviously, consult on the details.

Amendments 243 and 249, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and Amendment 254B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, seek to place limitations on the providers that parents must provide information on. They set a threshold so that parents need to provide information only on organisations that offer more than six or 10 hours of education a week, that educate their child during the school day, or that are one-off or largely social and recreational activities. Although I appreciate that these amendments seek to reduce burdens on parents, the exemptions would potentially leave large gaps in the overall picture of a child’s education. This is particularly true if a child is attending multiple providers or does not follow the school timetable. In relation to Amendment 254B, as I mentioned, we will make it clear in statutory guidance that parents will not be expected to give details of non-educational activities for the register.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

I apologise for interrupting my noble friend in her very helpful answer. My amendment would require that schools get this information so that they can learn how they could educate children better. Of course, it is excellent that the local authorities have it, but should not schools have it too?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I understand the point my noble friend makes. When children’s parents ask for their child to be taken off the roll of a school, which of course is absolutely their right, and the school should do that, it should also, as my noble friend says, reflect on the reasons why the parents are wanting to home educate that child. More broadly, in policy terms, I think we all need to reflect on the points made by my noble friend and others about where the reason is less a positive decision about home education and more a concern about provision for children with special educational needs or otherwise. I think my noble friend is aware that the department already collects information on reasons for home education, but, as she has highlighted, there are gaps in the data. That is why the Bill already allows for this information to be prescribed for inclusion.

For example, recording whether a child is a young carer could be prescribed under new Section 436C(2)(m) of the Education Act,

“any other information about the child’s characteristics, circumstances, needs or interactions with a local authority”.

If prescribed, local authorities will need to record this information if they have it or can reasonably obtain it. We will consult on the content of these regulations, and they will be subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure. I hope that this will help to ensure that the information prescribed for inclusion in local authority registers is appropriate and useful. However, it is necessary that the information outlined in the noble Lord’s and my noble friend’s amendments remains voluntary for parents to provide. For some parents, the reason they have chosen to home-educate is deeply personal. Requiring it could cause parents to try to avoid registration altogether, making it more difficult for local authorities to identify and support those children who need it.

Amendments 260 and 261 in some ways reverse the argument being made in the previous two amendments, a point also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. These amendments aim to restrict any further information being prescribed for inclusion or recording by local authorities on their registers other than that which is set out in the Bill. To be clear, the purpose of these powers is to ensure that local authorities can include useful information in their registers that has not been explicitly mentioned in primary legislation or prescribed through regulations. It will allow that information to be recorded. We do not want local authorities prevented from making their registers a productive tool due to a lack of flexibility but, just to reiterate once again—

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Very briefly, in new Section 436C(3) local authorities already have the power in legislation to include,

“any other information the local authority considers appropriate”.

My Amendment 260 limits the power of the Secretary of State to expand it in any way that the Secretary of State sees appropriate.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I will come back to the noble Baroness about whether that provides the flexibility I am arguing potentially needs to be in the Bill. The fear is that, as several noble Lords have argued, there are arguments for the inclusion of information that could be very helpful in identifying whether a child is receiving a suitable education, and, furthermore, what support it is possible to provide and should be provided for those children. We would not want to reduce the usefulness of the registers due to that lack of flexibility.

The point I was going to come on to, which I think is important, is that I must stress that parents are under no obligation to provide any further information, even if local authorities ask for it. I think there has been concern by some parents about the extent to which they will be expected to provide that information. That is not the case; it is, as several noble Lords have rightly argued, simply about how we can ensure that these registers are effective and useful while being as unburdensome as possible. That is what we are all striving to achieve here. I hope that, for the reasons I have outlined, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments at this point.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I shall pick up on a couple of points that the Minister made, I think this would be a very interesting point—

Children: Dangers of Screen Time

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the dangers of screen time for children.

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

My Lords, the Government recognise concerns about the impacts of screen time and are committed to protecting children online. We are continuing to explore how the evidence base on the impact of screen time on children can be improved, because the science is uncertain on the relationship between screen time, social media use and child development. We are assessing evidence gaps and will consider what, if any, further research and action are needed.

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her Answer and appreciate what she says about conflicting evidence, but does she agree with me that there is a problem and that teachers need help solving it? Given that situation, will the Government now advise schools to strictly limit screen time for children, including the screen time in which it is expected that they will do their homework, and thus strengthen the ability of individual teachers to deal with what is undoubtedly recognised as a problem?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that teachers, parents and early years settings are concerned to make sure that they get the use of screens right and bear in mind what the evidence tells us—for example, that overuse of screen time will tend to displace other important activity, such as physical activity or sleep. That is why the Government have already issued advice to parents on those issues and updated our advice for early years settings. It is also why we are clear that mobile phones have no place in schools, for example, and that new criteria around filtering and monitoring standards should be in place. We will continue to support our teachers, as well as parents, in trying to get the balance right for all our children.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the Department for Education is requiring the reception baseline assessment for four and five year-olds to use the format of touchscreen devices. There is concern that the introduction of a screen-based element to assessment for the youngest children will encourage and embed an approach to early years education that is at odds with a healthy approach to child development. There is considerable evidence that even limited screen use by very young children carries negative impacts spanning cognitive, linguistic and emotional development, and educational attainment. Will the Minister tell us how we can allay those fears?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

There are two separate points in the noble Lord’s question. I very much agree that the safety of our youngest children in particular should be a priority and that we should continue to monitor and review early years safeguarding requirements and guidance. As I suggested earlier, we have already updated the guidance regarding online safety and appropriate device and screen usage in early years settings. That is linked to advice from the World Health Organization on appropriate usage, particularly sedentary usage, of screen time. The point about assessment is different. My understanding is that the tool the noble Lord references will be used on a short-term basis and largely by teachers, working alongside students. We do not want to be in a position of suggesting that there is no use for technology and screens as we develop our assessment, whether for young children or older children. However, his broader point is right. That is why the Government have provided advice already and are continuing the research necessary, to be clear about what is appropriate use for children.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister may well have seen an interview with some young people at the end of last term. They are in a school where there has been agreement between the school, the parents and the young people that there will be no screen time, other than for educational purposes, in the school. The thing that was most striking about the reaction of these young people was how they had made a whole range of other friends. Previously, when they had breaks they would always go on their phones—and their thumbs would be going at 90 mph—but once that was not allowed they actually talked to their fellow pupils and developed a whole range of new friendships. It is a very important part of children’s social development.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord, with his very extensive knowledge, makes two important points. First, when we are talking about the impact of screen time we need to involve young people in describing and thinking about where there should be controls and what the alternatives are. Secondly, to go back to my point about screen time displacing other activity, there are fears that screen time displaces appropriate sleep, appropriate physical activity and, sometimes, as the noble Lord has rightly said, the interesting conversations that we are able to have with our colleagues that I am so much looking forward to now that we have returned from the Summer Recess.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it appears that mobile phones have replaced dummies, with children using them at a very early age? Do we not need to get across to parents that this is not a good idea, given that we know that young children’s brains are developing faster than at any other time in their lives?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

This is precisely why advice is provided by the Government—for example, through the Chief Medical Officer; by ParentZone through videos that it has produced specifically to focus on screen time, with practical advice to parents on how to set boundaries; and the early years guidance that I was talking about that links to the World Health Organization guidance, which, as the noble Lord says, identifies that there is really very little benefit, particularly from sedentary use of screen time, for very small children. I hope all those things will support parents in making the appropriate decisions to support their children in doing things other than simply looking at screens.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Given what the Minister has just said and the points made by the noble Lord opposite, what is stopping the Government following the French health ministry in banning screens entirely in childcare settings for children under three?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I think here, once again, it is important that we are clear, first, about the evidence of the impact of screens and, secondly, that there are times when there are benefits from the active use of screens. I know that noble Lords opposite have pushed on bans—whether that is for mobile phones in schools or apparently a new ban now—but, while all of us are concerned about this, it is a complex area in which there are benefits as well as disbenefits. It is appropriate for us to build our policy developments and the practice in our schools and early years centres on evidence and that is why the Government are also working hard to build the evidence base in this area.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, many young people watch a variety of shows on their small screens, including new films. How are the Government encouraging these films to be seen more widely in the cinema, where they belong?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Earl has tempted me very far out of my policy area, I have to say. My understanding is that cinemas have seen a growth in people going to see films there. Certainly, I know that young people in my life are very keen to carry on going to the cinema as well as watching a whole variety of media in different ways on their screens. The important thing is that we have control over the content of what they are watching, and that is why the Online Safety Act is so important. As I said previously, we are also clear that excessive time spent on a screen can prevent you from doing a whole range of other things which are also fun and important for your life.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that if schools—especially those for younger children—were to place more emphasis on reading books, that would help ameliorate the problem to a certain extent? There is a follow-on problem in that many state schools, especially those for younger children, have very poor libraries, which need a lot more books.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point about reading, which is why I am sure he is pleased that the Government have announced that 2026 will be a national year of reading, with lots of opportunities through our schools, communities and libraries for children to learn about the benefits of books and reading.

Young Futures Hubs

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Thursday 24th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential of Young Futures Hubs to improve crime prevention; and what steps they are taking to ensure that access is not stigmatising for young people seeking support for mental health.

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

My Lords, through improving support and intervening early, Young Futures hubs will help create opportunity for all and keep our streets safe. They will bring together vital local services in the community, ranging from well-being and mental health support to careers advice, on an open access and referral basis. Backed by £2 million, eight early adopter hubs will launch this year, with local codesign involving young people. This will inform the future rollout of an expected 50 hubs.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

I thank the noble Baroness. I have been a firm supporter of early support hubs since their inception. I was delighted to visit the Hive hub in Camden on Monday and greatly impressed by what I saw. But the recent government announcement framed Young Futures hubs very much as a crime prevention initiative, despite the commitments in the manifesto and the NHS 10-year plan that these hubs will provide open access drop-in mental health support for children and young people. Does the Minister agree with me, and with some of those I have spoken to in the sector, that framing these services as crime prevention risks stigmatising some young people and could deter them from accessing support before they even walk through the door?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I think the noble Baroness would agree that there are many common risk and protective factors that can underlay a range of poor outcomes for young people, including mental health challenges and the potential to go off the rails and into crime. That does not mean there is a causal link between mental ill-health and crime. What we are clear about, with respect to the Young Futures hubs, is that whatever their needs, it is essential that children and young people can access support via the hubs without fear of stigma. They need to be welcoming places where all young people want to go for a positive experience. That is why one of the key principles of the hubs is that they will be open access as well as targeted. In doing that, they will provide a safe space to offer more specialist interventions for those who need it, including evidence-based support for children and young people with mental health needs.

[Baroness Longfield (Lab)]

My Lords, Young Futures has such potential to deliver transformative change for young people, and I am grateful for the support that has been expressed for it. I have to declare an interest; it was an approach that a commission that I chaired put forward in 2022, dubbed “Sure Start for teenagers” at the time—and just as with Sure Start, this is about bringing together services in a community, as my noble friend has said, to really look at the needs across the whole area of the child. We know that so many young people who suffer from exploitation and the risk of getting involved in crime are also those in poverty, struggling in school or in need of mental health support. Just as Sure Start demanded that departments worked together and that different teams and services in an area worked together, Young Futures demands that too. Will my noble friend say something about the work that is going on with other departments to ensure that all those aspects come to fruition?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend deserves very great credit for the work that she has done in leading the way to the model of Young Futures hubs in the way she described. She is also right, of course, that to bring together the services that need to create and contribute to Young Futures hubs, we need cross-government working. That is why colleagues across government, from the Department for Education through DCMS, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, are all involved in thinking about the development of the Young Futures hubs and the Young Futures prevention partnerships as well.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, in my over 30 years of youth and community work, I have watched Governments of varying stripes bring in similar initiatives. Would it not be better to spend this money on organisations that already exist, such as FE colleges, schools and nurseries? You would get a bigger bang for your buck, and they already have the relationships with the young people. Surely that is a better way than starting something new that will take years to get off the ground and be effective. Of course, you could spend that money to ease the cost of parenting—those are environments where there is much more impact on children’s outcomes in future.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that all the places that he talked about will have a role to play in supporting young people with mental health issues, who have had very difficult starts in their lives, helping to keep them out of crime. I hope I can reassure the noble Lord that the point about Young Futures hubs is that they will build on the success of existing infrastructure and provision. This will not be a completely new building or completely new provision, but it will be a new approach to making sure that all the services that I have talked about in previous answers can be brought together successfully to support young people. That is what the early adopters in the eight hubs will look to ensure is as successful as possible.

[The Lord Bishop of Newcastle]

My Lords, it is important that the Young Futures hubs are developed in such a way that they respond to the distinct challenges in different local contexts. How do the Government intend to work with and consult young people from different regions of the UK to help shape and develop these important services?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate is right, of course, that there will be different ways in which provision already exists and needs manifest themselves in different parts of the country. That is precisely why, in the development of not only the first early adopter hubs but the 50 hubs to be developed after that, there will be engagement with young people and a recognition of the particular needs and strengths of the various areas in which they are being set up.

[Viscount Brookeborough (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that one of the main drivers of mental problems among young people, and indeed older ones, is financial instability? That arises from a lack of financial education, and not only in primary and secondary schools. There is a figure from only a few years ago that over 60% of university graduates feel that they do not have the education to manage their own financial affairs, even simple things such as future pensions and saving. What are the Government doing to improve that education though the schooling system?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I hope the noble Viscount will look back at the responses that I gave, in considerably more detail than I will be able to do today, on a Question precisely about financial education about six weeks ago. The important point is that there are opportunities in the school curriculum already—in maths, citizenship and other areas—to develop financial literacy. It is of course also important that we find other ways and support them, and the answers that I gave previously outlined some of the partnerships we have and some of the ways we will use other resource to improve financial education for young people.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister say a word about the role of the voluntary sector in these hubs? Often those are the organisations most trusted by young people. I take this opportunity to wish her a very well-earned break over recess.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. In thinking about the partnerships and the existing provision on which Young Futures hubs will be built, the voluntary sector will have a really important role to play—as she says, quite often reaching the parts that the statutory sector cannot reach. It is precisely those sorts of partnerships that will make Young Futures hubs effective. I take the opportunity to wish her a good break too, because I know we will spend several days together when we return in September.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, it is a tough old time for young people right now, not helped by the reduction in funding for youth services that we have seen over quite a few years. It is great to see the plethora of innovations coming through for them, but I worry that these hubs seek to be all things to all people, with the idea that they can help with mental issues, knife crime, drug issues, work skills and so on. As these hubs roll out, what assessments are planned to make them as successful and cost effective as possible?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is definitely right. We have seen a reduction in spending on youth services of 73% since 2011, but that is a reason to be ambitious in the way that the Government are being with the Young Futures hubs. Good-quality youth provision has always been able to tackle all the issues that the noble Baroness identifies—it has just been undercut and reduced very considerably in the past 13 or 14 years. In bringing back those opportunities, with what we have learned about how to tackle mental health, divert young people from crime and provide the range of opportunities that enable young people to succeed in their lives, it is that ambition that the Young Futures hubs will deliver. The eight early adopters will help us to find the models that work well and, as the noble Baroness says, to evaluate them to ensure that we are building on the best practice.

Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, with permission I will now make a Statement to update the House on this Government’s vital work to change our country for good by giving every child the best start in life.

“The focus today is firmly on our youngest children, but the impact will be much broader. This Government are building a stronger, fairer society and will lay the foundations in the earliest years of our children’s lives. Because we are determined to tackle the root causes of problems, not just the symptoms, we begin at the start. The inequalities that stain our country, the way in which opportunity is heaped on some but hidden from others—those disparities do not suddenly spring up in adulthood. Our babies are born into an unequal world and the inequality grows with them, right from those very first days when we carry them home from hospital.

Those early differences in the support their families can get, in the early education and childcare their parents can access, in the opportunities they have to start exploring: these are the differences, these and many more, that we all know take hold early on. The winds of fortune are there already on the first day of school—a gale at the backs of some; a blizzard in the faces of others. These are the differences that mean that some children arrive in the classroom not yet ready to learn. These are the differences that mean that while two-thirds of children reach a good level of development by age five, a third do not. These are the differences that fuel the injustice that half of our children on free school meals miss that milestone.

A Labour Government will not tolerate our children being failed like this. Within months of taking office, we set out in our plan for change our ambition for a record share of children reaching a good level of development by the age of five, because it matters so much for those young lives. It goes further—it sets the tone. Forty per cent of the disadvantage gap at the age of 16 is already there at the age of five.

Next month, we know that many young people across our country will pick up their exam results. Some will do well, but sadly some others will be disappointed, and those results-day stories of smiles and frowns for our young people begin to be written in the first years of their lives, so if we want to build an education system where every child can achieve and thrive, if we want to grow a society where the opportunity to get on is open to all, and if we want to deliver the change that the country so desperately needs, we have to focus on the early years. We have to give every child the best start in life. That is where my priority as Secretary of State lies, and that is why, just 12 months after entering government, I am proud to be here today to set out our ‘best start in life’ strategy, which we are determined will change this country for good.

Giving every child the best start in life begins with families. Becoming a parent or carer is full of joy and wonder, but it can sometimes be hard, and it can feel isolating too, so parents and carers need to know that they can tap into a community of support. They need to know that they are not alone, but we are falling short. One in four families with children under five struggle to get trusted advice; for families on low incomes, it is one in three.

It was not always like this. There was a time when the Government cared deeply about children’s development. Members across this House will know all about Sure Start, the quiet revolution in the lives of our children carried out by the last Labour Government. Sure Start was one of the proudest achievements of that Labour Government, and I am proud to build on its legacy. We remember all the good it did for our children, for our communities and for our country. Sure Start raised exam results and reduced hospitalisations. It improved early identification and boosted physical health and mental health. It reached disadvantaged families and made a difference to their lives.

Sure Start was a triumph. Of course, it was not perfect—no programme ever is—but it worked in so many ways and for so many families, and never more so than when it stuck to its principles and brought together the excellent services that parents need. At the heart of its success were the children’s centres: one-stop shops where families knew where they could go for help; a comforting and consistent offer of support all in one place. There are many ways in which 14 years of Conservative Government damaged our country and society, but the vandalism they inflicted on the lives of our youngest children—tearing these services out of communities, deepening inequalities and abandoning families—should never be forgotten. Today, the Government will right that terrible wrong and restore hope to families.

Our Best Start service will honour the proud legacy of Sure Start. Today’s Labour Government stand on the shoulders of those who went before, but we do so to look forward to the better future our children deserve, not back to the past. That is how we will deliver for a new generation of families.

We will introduce a new Best Start family service delivered through Best Start family hubs: the first step to a national family service that ensures that families can easily get the right support for their children from conception to age five, giving parents the freedom to focus on loving their children. Today, we announce the National Year of Reading for 2026. We want to give parents more time to read with their children, to grow a love of learning that starts in the home and flows throughout a child’s life.

Best Start family hubs will be open to all, rooted in disadvantaged communities. They will work with nurseries, childminders, schools, health services, libraries and local voluntary groups—a whole community coming together around one goal: to give children the best possible start in life. Our Best Start digital service means we are ready for the future, linking families to their local Best Start family hubs and exploring how the power of AI can help parents to find the right information.

We will make early education and care more affordable and easier to access. From the day this Government won the backing of the British people, we have set about delivering the entitlement of 30 hours of government-funded childcare a week for working families, backed by funding reaching £9 billion next year. Last July, we inherited a pledge without a plan, but the Government are delivering on our promise to parents. I know how much it matters that promises made are promises kept—to the future of our country and to the trust between families and their Government. The cost of childcare will no longer price parents out of jobs they love; instead, they will have the choice and freedom to work the hours they want, and an average of £7,500 a year back in their pockets.

I thank all those who are working with us to drive that change, from private to school-based nurseries, group-based providers, childminders, dedicated professionals and early years educators who are transforming life chances. With almost £370 million provided by the Chancellor at the spending review, we are building and expanding more nurseries in primary schools, with the first of the 6,000 extra places from September this year. Soon enough, 80% of childcare in this country will be government-backed.

The message is clear: this Labour Government are on the side of families. The Labour Party is the party of the family. That means that childcare must be better linked to educational priorities, better geared to closing attainment gaps, and better focused on all our children succeeding at school. Our early years educators are too often the hidden heroes of our communities. It is past time that we backed them, so we will raise the status of our workforce. There will be a new professional register, because working in early years is just that: a profession. There will be more high-quality training for staff, guided by a golden thread of the best evidence, and we will train more early years teachers, because we know the difference they make to our young ones.

Stronger practice hubs will double in number, and we will offer new financial incentives to attract and keep great early years teachers in nurseries that serve the most disadvantaged communities. Every child deserves a great education and a great early start in life, and that includes children with SEND. Early intervention can work wonders to lower barriers to learning, so under this Government, inclusive practice will become standard practice.

This Government are driving a decade of national renewal, but there can be no decade of renewal for our country without a decade of renewal for our children. This is urgent, because children only get one chance. If opportunities are missed, parents do not get what they need. If the great nursery down the road has not been built yet, that is it—there is no going back. For 14 years, children’s lives marched on as services were ripped away. I will not stand by and watch as more and more children are let down. Through this strategy, I am bringing change—change for all our families, all our communities, and, above all, change for our children. It is for them that our strategy was written, and it is for them that we will see it through, so that we give each and every child, from their first day in this world, the best start in life. I commend this Statement to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Secretary of State’s Statement. We welcome any measures to tackle child poverty and improve the early years support which families receive. Early years have for so long been seen as just an add-on, but they are actually the most crucial part of education, including the early identification of any problems or issues and early support for any problems that are identified.

The ambitious aims of the strategy must be matched with sufficient funding to ensure its effective implementation. The additional funding for early years specialists is welcome. But with schools currently finding efficiency savings from existing budgets—mention was made of national insurance rises—and the Government’s new early years funding contract, which has led to nurseries refusing new children, there is a real risk that the investment will simply paper over the cracks rather than deliver lasting improvements. Without a comprehensive review of funding across the entire early years system, many settings will continue to struggle to meet demand or retain experienced staff. My colleague in the other place, Tom Morrison, has campaigned tirelessly following the heartbreaking death of Gigi Meehan, who lost her life in the care of a nursery that failed to follow correct procedures. We welcome the announcement that Ofsted inspections will become more frequent in early years settings and nurseries.

Giving children the best start in life also means giving parents the flexibility and support to make the right decisions for themselves and their childcare arrangements. Currently, low rates of statutory maternity and paternity pay are not high enough to give parents a real choice, while the UK’s two-week statutory paternity leave lags behind far more advanced economies.

High-quality early years education is the best possible investment in the future and the most effective way of narrowing the gap between rich and poor children. As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, the Early Years Alliance reported that one-third of providers are at risk of permanent closure in the next year, and four in 10 said they would reduce the number of funded places for three and four year-olds. Early years education provision is so important. It needs to have high-quality provision with well-trained staff. They need to see a career strategy, training and all staff having or working towards an early years qualification.

Childminders are a valued part of the early years system. Will the Minister consider replacing the three different current registration processes with a single childcare register? Given the staffing crisis in early years education, what assurances can the Minister offer that there will be sufficient qualified professionals to staff 1,000 hubs by 2028?

Best start family hubs will make a real difference to children and families. The new investment will take the total number, as we have heard, to around 1,000 by 2028. It will be supported, as we have heard, by the new digital family hub to be launched by the National Health Service. However, does the Minister think that we need to consider measures to ensure that the most disadvantaged families actually access the services offered by these hubs?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords for their response to and broad welcome of the Statement. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that I did not feel uncomfortable at all. It took me back, I have to say, but nevertheless the challenge and contrast that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State set out in her Statement in the other place was wholly fair.

On the funding of family hubs, the difference that this Government are making is a trebling of investment in those hubs over his spending review period. While currently only 88 local authorities have access to the funding to support a hub, that trebling of investment will ensure that all local authorities will be able to develop the best start family hubs. As I suggested in the Statement, we will develop that further through the digital offer, giving parents access to the information that they—I agree with the noble Baroness here—most certainly need from the very earliest stages, not only of their children being alive but in pregnancy, to be able to support them.

Although there is a focus in this Statement on the very early ages, because that is the right place to start to make a difference, children’s hubs will continue to respond to children from nought to 19. I think the noble Baroness identified some areas in which we would expect that support to continue.

Noble Lords asked about funding of the early years entitlement and its delivery. To be clear, in delivering the 30 hours entitlement from this September, this Government will provide over £8 billion, as well as delivering a 45% uplift in the early years pupil premium and providing £75 million for the early years expansion grant to help providers meet their local demand. We have responded to concerns around funding in the way we have increased investment.

The phrase “pledge without a plan” related to the early years entitlement. While the noble Baroness is right that it was announced by the previous Government, it did not have funding allocated to it to enable it to be delivered. It is the hard work of the sector and the investment this Government have been willing to put into it, as I have just outlined, which means we stand a chance of being able to meet that entitlement this September. However, noble Lords are right that, without sufficient recruitment, we cannot deliver that.

That is why, as I outlined in the Statement and is outlined in the strategy, we will invest in the recruitment of early years workers through the £4,500 financial incentive for early years workers in the most disadvantaged areas. Across the system, we will have improved training for early years workers through a focus on professionalism, with the development of a register to recognise the professional status of those who work with our youngest children. Those will be important ways to welcome and attract more people into the sector, along with our “Do Something Big” recruitment campaign and the emphasis we are putting on supporting better practice in a range of areas for early years practitioners.

Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, rightly raised the issue of early years SEND provision. We know the crucial importance of children’s earliest years: they can make a really important difference to their development, health and life chances, as well as to identifying any special educational needs a child might have at an early stage. That is why we are further funding training for up to 1,000 early years special educational needs co-ordinators in 2025-26, which will be targeted at settings in the most disadvantaged areas. Last year, we launched free online child development training to support early years educators working with children with individual needs and development differences. We are continuing to fund voluntary and community sector partners that support family hubs’ delivery of services for home learning and early years special educational needs and disabilities. This includes funding awarded to the early years SEND partnership for the 2025-26 financial year.

The noble Baroness also asked about the concern around the continuation of education, health and care plans. In this Chamber, we often talk about the parlous state of this country’s special educational needs and disabilities system, the struggle parents face to get the support they need for their children, the length of time it takes to get education, health and care plans, and the lack of trust parents now have in that system. We are determined to rectify all those things.

To clarify, there will always be a legal right to the additional support that children with SEND need, and we will protect it, but this Government are prepared to grasp the nettle and reform a broken system that noble Lords opposite presided over and have themselves described as a lose-lose-lose system. We will ensure that every child in this country gets the opportunity to achieve, thrive at school and get on in life, and we will do that by bringing forward earlier identification and inclusion of all children, while safeguarding the support that those with special educational needs and disabilities need.

On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, about the tragic case of Gigi, I very much commend her parents for their campaign. Last week they had the opportunity to meet with my honourable friend the Minister for Early Education, Stephen Morgan. As the noble Lord said, the improvements in Ofsted’s inspection of early years provision are important here, with a commitment to inspecting an early years setting within 18 months of it being registered, and a reduction in the length of time between inspections from six years to four years. We will see better inspection, and therefore better accountability, and with the investment this Government are putting in, better results as well.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down, could she commit to writing to me on the points I raised about the registration of child minders and ensuring that we get disadvantaged children to actually use the facilities?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, I will write to the noble Lord about that.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome this Statement, and I positively want to declare an interest. Two weeks ago today, my first granddaughter was born, and since then I have spent many hours holding her and talking to her. I could not agree more with my noble friend when she talks about the importance of early years and early years education. What timetable does my noble friend have in mind for raising the status of early years educators? Does, for example, she have a deadline in mind for the adoption of the professional register?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

May I start by congratulating my noble friend on his grandfatherly duties. He makes an important point about the contribution that parents and indeed grandparents can make to children’s earliest development. That is why, as part of the best start family hubs, we are providing support for parents. We are supporting them to read with their children and grandchildren and helping them with behaviour issues—which I am sure my noble friend’s grandchild definitely will not have. All these things are very helpful. We will move as quickly as possible on the action to improve the recruitment of early years workers with the £4,500 financial incentive and the professional register, both of which recognise the urgency of ensuring that we have the right people in place to deliver the quality of care and education that our youngest children deserve.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I very much welcome this Statement; I think it is fantastic. Like the noble Viscount, I have become a grandparent reasonably recently, but I am very struck by the difference from when I had my daughter, which is now 41 years ago. First, I got three nights in hospital, and, secondly, the moment I got back, the health visitor was at the door. I did not have to ask for the health visitor; she was there. She came two to three times a week for what seemed like most of a year, and she was absolutely wonderful.

My daughter had twins; they went to term but were a bit early and were jolly small. The moment the little ones could survive without their heated blanket, we were out; no health visitor turned up, until finally one did, and there was very little help with breastfeeding. That is the thing I really want to ask the Minister about: under this, will you have to go and search for the help, or will the help come to you? I ended up with my daughter getting her people on the phone and there were lots of panics—people are scared when they have little ones around. Everything I have heard from the Minister is simply amazing, but it misses that first crucial week or two when you are back home with your bundle of joy.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that the healthcare and support that families receive through the 1,001 critical days from conception to age two and beyond can have a lifelong impact. That is why our colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care are also focusing on ensuring that every child has the healthiest possible start in life, including by improving maternity care, strengthening health visiting services, increasing access to vaccinations and taking steps to reduce tooth decay in children. As the noble Baroness said, strengthening the health visiting services is particularly important for those parents bringing home their bundles of joy, with all the challenges that they bring with them.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare that I am a councillor in central Bedfordshire. I too welcome this Statement; I think we all recognise how important it is to support families and the early start in life.

The Minister made reference to Sure Start. When I became a council leader, I had to deal with Sure Start. It was great because we had these shiny new buildings, but they lacked long-term funding, which put councils in a very difficult position when that funding ran out after three years. The second point I discovered was that they were very much stand-alone and did not integrate with other services such as schools, health, various support services and, as I think somebody else mentioned, the wider age range. When we took over Sure Start centres, we started doing more of that: we took them out of some of their shiny buildings and put them in places where they were much more accessible.

Given what the Government are now proposing and the real-term cuts that they are making to the local council funding that they provide, can the Minister assure the House that there will be long-term funding for family hubs into the future? Can she also assure the House that the Government will enable local councils and local partners to have the flexibility to tailor their approach to their local area and its needs, to deliver for their communities? As my noble friend Lady Barran said, will the Government build on the previous Government’s good work with family hubs and look at the wider age range? I do not want to be in a situation where you can bring your newly born baby along to the hub but not your three year-old or five year-old, which actually stops you going.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am sorry that the noble Lord’s experience was that Sure Start funding was not guaranteed over a long enough period. It certainly was not guaranteed after 2010, was it? That was the problem in the last 14 years.

But to take up the noble Lord’s point about how you ensure that these centres bring together a whole range of services, we are establishing these best start family hubs, building on the lessons of Sure Start. But it will be very important that, in doing that, we bring together parenting, healthcare and education support services to ensure that all babies, children and families have access to both early intervention and the support that they need throughout children’s lives. Alongside that, it will be important to bring together professionals not only from health and education but also working with nurseries, childminders, schools, health services, libraries and local voluntary and community groups and connected to other local services such as relationship support, housing and job support. It is by bringing those services together in an easily accessible way—either in a physical building or through the development of the digital access to best start advice, which we are also working on—that we believe that our expansion could reach an estimated 500,000 children.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It is good to have the whole thing read out; it gives you some context. As pages 4 and 6 of the Statement mention, we are talking about parents reading to children—and, before that, the Minister spoke about how good an advantage it is if you do all the right things. We then talk about SEN. To go back to nurse, in my case, I am dyslexic, and 70% of the dyslexics in the country are unidentified. It tends to have a downward spiral effect on your income and earnings. What are we doing to make sure that libraries and assistive technology are used to get children used to the idea that books are good things? You cannot rely on all parents doing this. Will we, for instance, make sure that libraries are available and that they have access to the new technology? Before I sit down, I had better remind the House that I am chairman of Microlink PC, which is an assisted tech company.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As well as the announcements that we have made around the best start family service—which will, as I suggested, link in to libraries, for example, and other important local facilities—we were able to announce today that 2026 will be a National Year of Reading. There will be a whole range of activities linking with local libraries, led by the National Literacy Trust, to encourage more reading, both at a very early age and with a focus on children who might not otherwise be able to access reading. Alongside what I talked about in terms of the additional support that we are providing to early years workers and training on identifying special educational needs—as well as the stronger practice hubs that help with advice about how to support children perhaps with particular needs and help to develop reading and maths understanding, for example—that begins to be, and is, a strong package to ensure that we are both picking up children with particular needs around reading and promoting a love of reading among all children and their parents.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, there is so much to welcome in this Statement, and I thank my noble friend for repeating it. I was going to ask about reading for pleasure, but she has just responded to that so brilliantly that I do not need to. I particularly welcome the raising of the status of the workforce. The presumption of inclusion is an absolutely excellent departure. It does of course mean that we have to be very clear that all these things need to be funded and that we need to have ongoing training—one-off training for people will not cut it. If we are going to have the expectation of inclusion, we need that to be part of everyone’s training all through. I am delighted to hear what she said about reading for pleasure.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is right about the investment in special educational needs, and disabilities in particular. I know she will recognise the additional £1 billion into high-needs funding that this Government have invested already; the £740 million-worth of capital that is going into creating extra spaces, particularly in mainstream schools, for the inclusive resource centre provision that enables children to remain in those mainstream schools; and the investment in more training for teachers.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement. The Government are right to identify education as being the great life changer for many young people. It is right to place emphasis on the power of development through reading and to focus on early intervention. It is often the case—sometimes Governments can be reluctant on this—that the dividends of that early intervention may be decades down the line, but that is all the more reason for ensuring that it happens.

It is often the case that many children who are in greatest need of that early intervention come from families who are disengaged from formal education—sometimes perhaps because of parental bad experience with formal education themselves—who are slightly disengaged from society as a whole or from the local community, or who are disengaged from involvement with government agencies. Can the Minister outline the Government’s strategy to ensure that those who might be described as hard-to-reach children are able to benefit from early intervention and are not left behind?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As I was suggesting, in some of the initiatives we have focused on ensuring that, for example, the additional financial incentive for early years educators will start in the most disadvantaged areas, to make sure that the areas where children most need support are the areas where we are improving and increasing the numbers of teachers who can teach there. Lots of children will benefit from the extension of evidence-based interventions to support early maths, literacy and language skills. From next year, we will provide additional funding to extend the early years pupil premium in areas most in need, ensuring that children most at risk of falling behind receive high-quality, evidence-informed support.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, following on from the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on screens, new research shows that gaming addiction and smartphone overuse is, frighteningly, starting much earlier than previously thought—in fact, in primary schools rather than in teenage years. Does the Minister agree with the cross-party amendments that seek to ban unnecessary screens and smartphones in every year of schools, primary and secondary?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We had a lengthy debate about this in Committee on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. I certainly agree with the noble Lord that supporting parents to read with their children, for example, rather than simply giving them screens to look at—that is part of this initiative—and finding ways to help parents to understand the impacts of screen time, which we talked about in considering those amendments, are important. In that debate, I undertook to ensure that we continued the work we are doing on gathering evidence around the impact of screen time and making sure that we are providing strong and positive alternatives for children and support for parents.

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for an excellent Statement, which I really welcome. Best start, it seems to me, builds on the legacy of Sure Start. I noticed the telling research from EPI in 2016, which found that 40% of the attainment gap by 16 is created before children start school. I am glad that she did not resile from the words of the Statement: the demise of Sure Start was devastating, particularly for the poorest children. That degree of disadvantage makes it much more difficult for teachers. Sure Start was a universal entitlement. Does the Minister envisage that best start will start with the most disadvantaged but develop into a more universal entitlement for all parents and their children?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very important point. We have seen the evidence from the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others about the long-term impact of Sure Start, which is what makes the gap in the past 14 years so distressing. That is why this Government are committed to building on Sure Start, developing the best start family hubs and providing over the course of this spending review period a trebling of the investment in them, and making sure that every local authority—not just the 88 that currently receive funding—has access to funding to develop that sort of provision.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome this daughter of Sure Start. One of Sure Start’s great strengths was the way in which it involved parents so as to boost their agency, self-confidence and sense of ownership of the projects. Today’s report refers to coproduction by local authorities together with their communities. Can my noble friend say more about that, and whether the Government will emphasise the need for efforts to be made to ensure that parents from the most marginalised communities, including those living in poverty, are actively involved?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. The best best start centres will involve local communities and parents and will emphasise, as she does, the needs and voices of parents who most need to be able to access those services. There will be a strong message to local authorities that that engagement and a co-development should be an important part of the way in which they take all this.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

I, too, welcome this Statement—it is a wonderful Statement. The Minister’s opening remarks give hope. I have a particular interest, as I have two grandchildren in Luton and one in Birmingham. The backdrop to Sure Start was that wonderful report that Robert Runcie published, called Faith in the City. The problems then were that residents faced social and economic decline, with poor housing on large estates, with unemployment and poverty and issues with education and policing. The call was that both church and government and everybody should be doing something about this. Sure Start was an inspired vision, and I for one want to say that, whatever anybody says, it worked. But in order that children are not failed from when they begin, are the Government going to take on those great hindrances to learning and well-being that we see particularly in the inner cities?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble and right reverend Lord rightly says that, although this is important progress, and we will have a broad range of partners, there are of course other issues, such as child poverty and lack of housing, which this Government are absolutely committed to addressing.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My question follows on from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. Apparently, many children arrive at reception level unprepared for being in school, which is really a parenting problem as much as anything. How do we get reluctant parents to accept the work of the centres, and how do they become involved? What incentives will we have to get those reluctant parents to take on the responsibility and have the help that they can so readily get?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, at the moment, one-third of children arrive with the lack of development to succeed. That is exactly why families will have an important role to play in the development, and parental support will be an important part of the services offered.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

At the moment, family hubs can provide language support for parents from two years through the home learning scheme. Will the Government consider ensuring that that policy covers children from birth? A great deal of good can be done, as many noble Lords have said, for children’s language development from the earliest possible time.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It is certainly a very important part of what we would hope to deliver, both in best start hubs and in early years, as we improve the ability and provision there to ensure that children have the language skills that they need from the earliest possible time. I shall certainly pass on my noble friend’s exhortations about that to the team developing this work.

House adjourned at 7.54 pm.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, we have got to group 3, which is good. I start by addressing the Clause 30 stand part notice tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking. Clause 30 sets out the requirement that a child who is on a child protection plan, who is the subject of a Section 47 inquiry or who is registered at a special school cannot be removed from school to be home-educated without local authority permission.

We have set out clearly those instances—my noble friend did not necessarily agree that it was clear, but I hope that I will make it clear now—where children will fall within the scope of Clause 30 and so require consent in order to be home-educated. Specifically, it will apply to pupils in England who are of compulsory school age and for whom at least one of the following applies: the child attends a special school and they became a pupil at that school through arrangements made by the local authority; the child is subject to child protection inquiries under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989; or there is a child protection plan in place. The intent of the legislation is that, if you do not fall into one of those categories, you do not need to seek the consent of the local authority in order to home-educate your child. There is a narrow and specific group of children for whom Clause 30 suggests that their parents will need to seek the consent of the local authority.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister. She has lucidly identified what we now know is the correct position and I am very grateful to her.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The children who are subject to child protection inquiries and plans are among our most vulnerable and the children who attend special schools are likely to have the highest levels of need. It is necessary that local authority consent is sought in those scenarios to ensure that these children are safe and suitably educated.

Even then, Clause 30 does not mean that these eligible families will not be able to home-educate their children. We are simply requiring the local authority to take a closer look in those circumstances. It may, in any of those three categories, be wholly appropriate for those children to be educated at home, but it is also right, given the specific circumstances, that the local authority that has responsibility—or where those children live—looks at that case and gives consent for home education in those narrow categories of cases.

We want local authorities to know which children in their areas may be home-educated and to make an informed decision to determine what will be in the best interests of the child in those circumstances. Clause 30 is underpinned by a review process; I will return to that in a moment. Statutory guidance will also be published to help schools and local authorities to carry out their new duties consistently from authority to authority and in a proportionate way.

I turn to the specific amendments. Amendments 203A and 204, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wei and Lord Lucas, seek to remove the requirement for parents to obtain local authority consent to home-educate should their child attend a special school under arrangements of the local authority. The Government believe it is important to retain this requirement. We totally recognise that parents of children at special schools have their children’s best interests at heart, just like other parents. However, children in special schools often have very complex needs that would be difficult for their parents to provide for at home. The loss of the support the child receives in a special school may be a major upheaval in the child’s life. Clause 30 retains an additional check that there are no educational suitability issues resulting from the loss of this support and that home education would be in the child’s best interests. It is clear that this is a different nature of concern from that represented by Section 47 inquiries or a child protection plan.

Amendment 210, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, wants to specify a timeframe for the home education consent decision to be made. I wholly share the noble Lord’s desire for decisions to be undertaken as quickly as possible. We think that the current wording in the clause, “without undue delay”, ensures as prompt a turnaround as possible. If we had an arbitrary timeline for this process—28 days, for example—that would imply that every decision was as straightforward as any other. Timings are likely to be different, depending on the circumstances of the child. By necessity, because these are children who already have other needs and requirements, the process could be complex and will involve multi-agency collaboration and information-sharing to reach a decision.

Amendment 215A seeks to ensure that local authorities offer parents an information session on home education as part of the consent process. I agree it is important that the decision to home-educate is an informed one. But the duty to secure a suitable education rests with the parent, not the local authority. With this in mind, requiring local authorities to offer mandatory information sessions would not be appropriate. It is parents who should be taking responsibility for researching their educational choices. Parents should carefully consider their responsibilities and the financial implications of home-educating before requesting permission to withdraw their child from school. We will ensure that the department’s relevant guidance provides key information that a parent needs to consider when contemplating whether to home-educate. Local authorities and schools can signpost to this should they become aware of parental intentions to home-educate.

Amendment 219, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to require local authorities to provide a statement of reasons to parents when refusing a request for consent. As the noble Baroness suspected, it is the case that local authorities are already obliged to provide their rationale for such a decision. We intend to make this clear in the relevant statutory guidance, which will need to be updated so that relevant professionals know what is required of them.

Finally, Amendment 221, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, looks to provide a tribunal appeals process as a review in the case of a local authority’s decision to refuse to grant permission to home-educate a child. We do not believe that this amendment is necessary because Clause 30 already provides for a review process. Parents who disagree with the local authority’s decision to grant or refuse permission to home-educate their child can refer the decision to the Secretary of State for review. They will carefully consider the full facts of the case. Having done so, the Secretary of State has the power to either uphold the local authority’s decision, to direct the local authority to grant consent or to refer the question back to the local authority for review.

[Lord Wei (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister. I believe that this appeal process to the Secretary of State already exists. Clearly, it is a very difficult situation for the Secretary of State to be the tribunal for the parents, if the parents feel that the local authority or the Government have not been supportive of their desire to home-educate. I would be grateful if the Minister could let us know how many times, when a home-educated family has requested support from the Secretary of State to overturn a local authority decision, that has actually happened. According to the statistics I have, there has never been such an instance. I wonder whether, if this were to be tested in a court or by some other mechanism, this form of procedural appeal would not really muster the kind of belief that the Minister has. Might she reconsider looking into the various forms of appeal that we will propose in later groups of amendments, or indeed look again at the idea of a tribunal?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

This legislation introduces the consent process. People have not gone through this process, with the specific, narrow categories of children and families for whom it applies. Does the noble Lord want another go?

[Lord Wei (Con)]

I am referring to other instances, which home-educated families have referenced, where they have written to the Secretary of State for Education —under the current regime, not the future one—and where no action has ever been taken in their favour. Perhaps we can discuss this in August.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Let us not talk about what will happen and when in terms of engagement with my officials. Just to be clear: as I said at the beginning of my remarks, that engagement will enable noble Lords to get an understanding of the way the Government intend to implement these provisions and to get some assurance around the processes that will be used. It will not be another opportunity for noble Lords who fundamentally oppose what the Government are doing—I am thinking of the noble Lord, who started his contribution by saying that he fundamentally opposes what we are trying to do here. I am not sure that the engagement will be particularly helpful for persuading, through officials, the Government to wholly change their approach to this. As I said, it is intended to look at the detail and to provide some assurance about how the processes will work.

I will reiterate the point I made previously. Clause 30 is introducing a consent mechanism and, specifically, a review process of that consent mechanism. Home-educating parents may well have written on other issues to the Secretary of State and been dissatisfied with the response that they received. However, that is different from the review process that is spelled out in legislation in Clause 30.

I turn to the points made by my noble friend Lady Morris. She is right. She asks questions that are the subject of amendments to be debated in later groups, but they are very reasonable. She asked about how much time a child would need to study with a provider for it to be reported, and how often and how quickly parents would need to update the details about that. Those are precisely the types of issues that would be subject to the further consultation around the regulations and guidance, including with home-educating parents and others, to ensure that we do that in a way that balances the burdens and requirements on parents, alongside ensuring that the local authority has the basic information that it needs to make the scheme work properly. In this area, there is considerable scope for consultation and engagement about how precisely that will work. I hope that answers my noble friend’s question and that the noble Lord, Lord Wei, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her flexibility on the notification period, which in the Bill currently is 15 days. It is very nice to hear that the Government and my noble friend can be more flexible about it and are prepared to discuss it. I thank her very much indeed for that. I gave a very strong indictment against new Section 426C—

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Can I just clarify whether my noble friend is concluding the group or intervening on me?

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

In Committee, noble Lords may talk as many times as we like. We will try to keep it short though.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Does my noble friend want me to respond again? That is what I would like to know.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

I am getting up to thank the Minister for her willingness to consider the timetable for the notification by the schooling parent of any changes in the educational plan, which they will have had to give already in detail under new Section 426C(1)(e). I am asking her, as I did in my speech, whether she and the Government would be willing to look at the actual terms of subsection (e), which have been widely described as very onerous. I gave examples of that, such as the need to give details of Sunday schooling. I also pointed out that that type of information is not sought at all from parents with children at state schools. I remind her that, after the very successful meeting with the Minister, Stephen Morgan, on 17 June, I wrote a follow-up letter on 20 June, copying in my noble friend. I asked specifically whether the provisions in subsection (e) could be reviewed, with a schooling parent, to find a practical answer. I must suggest again that, in its present form, it is most onerous.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The questions that my noble friend asks are, I think, the subject of amendments in later groups, which is when I had presumed we would come to those details. I will stick to that, if that is okay.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for what she said. I entirely understand the limitations of discussions with officials, which is why I want to talk to her again about tribunals. Tribunals are an established part of mediating between the citizen and the state. In situations like this, or in many circumstances similar to those we are talking about—and this is by no means the only time we will discuss this; the next time will be when we are talking about best interests—when you have a hard-pressed local authority that may have a particular prejudice against home education and may be making life extremely difficult, as some of them do, you want an effective right of appeal. The system of appeal to the Secretary of State has existed in various forms in various bits of legislation for a long time. I am aware of one occasion when the Secretary of State agreed with the complainant. It does not work as an effective forum. It is not set up to be an effective forum. It does not allow for balanced and deep argument. The department is just not set up as a tribunal: it is not staffed as a tribunal, nor skilled as a tribunal. It is not the right place. I just say to my noble friend Lady Barran that I would very much appreciate her support for a tribunal amendment at Report, because that is what this appears likely to come to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, points out that intervention in schools can be a protection. The Government’s thinking about the future of this and the future interaction would be well worth hearing.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

In group 4, we have an interesting combination of some amendments suggesting that the Government are going too far in their proposals around the hurdle for having to seek consent to home-educate and others suggesting that they are not going far enough. I will try to find a way through the centre of this, because what they all have in common is seeking to explore the rationale for the local authority to have to provide consent before a parent can withdraw a child from school to home-educate—in this case, where the child is subject to a child protection inquiry

I turn to Amendments 205 and 206. Just to be clear, the Government believe that the consent measure with respect to Section 47 inquiries provides an important but proportionate safety net for children subject to child protection inquiries and plans. To clarify something that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said and to reiterate this, the consent provisions are not an automatic bar to these parents home-educating. It could well be the case that, notwithstanding the fact that a child was subject to Section 47 inquiries or even under a child protection plan, the local authority felt it was appropriate for, or was willing to give consent for, that child to be home-educated. To reiterate what I said, it is a requirement for the local authority to consider the circumstances of that child, given that they have come under the auspices of children’s social care through Section 47 of the Children Act. Our view is that this should be done as part of its wider decision-making on whether a child needs protection and the planning that follows that.

There is some suggestion, which I really disagree with, that local authorities would find it easy to jump to a Section 47 inquiry simply to prevent a parent being able to home-educate their child. There are a lot of consequences to undertaking a Section 47 inquiry. I would find it hard to understand why a local authority would be so keen to prevent a parent home-educating if there were no reasons to stop them or want to get itself into the burdens around a Section 47 inquiry if it did not think it was important to do that. Of course, it is not just what a local authority believes about the circumstances of a child. For a child to be the subject of a Section 47 inquiry, they will have already hit a threshold of actual or likely significant harm. That is a high threshold. An inquiry should certainly not be initiated purely because a parent has decided to home-educate.

I note the understandable concern of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about how this measure could be used in an abusive relationship, where false or malicious allegations regarding the safety of a child, for example, might be made to continue to control or harass an individual. The sad reality, of course, is that it is not only with respect to issues about home education that that might happen. It could happen, and does happen, in many circumstances where local authorities are making decisions about children. For that reason, we are confident that this would not be something unusual or unheard of for local authorities, and that they do have robust policies and processes in place to consider information and evidence about child protection concerns, including recognising and handling malicious allegations. Perhaps the noble Lord could be provided with some more examples of how local authorities would handle this type of circumstance, to provide some reassurance. Given that a child will be the subject of a Section 47 inquiry only where there is actual or likely significant harm, it is reasonable that checks should be undertaken before such a child can be removed from school for home education.

Amendment 207, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, focuses on bringing all children receiving support and services under Section 17 of the Children Act, known as “children in need”, and any child who has ever been the subject of a child protection plan in the past into the scope of the consent measure. We share her commitment to ensuring that all children are protected from harm, and recognise that, while home education is not an inherent safeguarding risk, it can of course mean that some children could slip under the radar. However, we believe that this amendment would be disproportionate. “Children in need” is a very broad group of children and many will receive services which are nothing to do with safeguarding concerns or particular educational needs.

I think the noble Baroness was suggesting that there might be ways in which it would be possible to have a definition that looked at different elements of Section 17 concerns, and perhaps I can come back to her on that point. I think one of her reasons for suggesting it is that she understands, of course, that, for example, all children with disabilities are automatically included under Section 17. We certainly would not want to suggest here that any child with disabilities whose parents wanted to home-educate them would necessarily need to seek consent. I also draw her attention to the deliverability of a measure that includes both children in need and children subject to child protection activity in the consent measure.

In the year to the end of March 2024, there were 399,500 children in need, compared with 224,520 child protection inquiries and 49,900 children on child protection plans. As noble Lords can see, it would be both disproportionate and overly burdensome on local authorities to make a consent decision for every parent who wished to withdraw their child from school for home education where that child is receiving help under Section 17: it would be roughly a doubling of the potential number of children who might need it.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

From memory, are there not 400-and-something thousand children with an EHCP who will be within the kind of consent framework? Obviously, the vast majority of the 400,000 children who are under Section 17 are not going to be home-educated. I take the noble Baroness’s point; I am just trying to say that we have one group that is in and another group, where we suspect potential abuse or neglect, that is out. That just feels like an odd split.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I recognise that point. On the special school point, it is not sufficient to have an EHCP to need consent to withdraw your child to home-educate; it is if they are in a special school. The rationale there is that you are changing their schooling and removing them, by definition, from something that contains very specific levels of support, otherwise it would not be a special school. It is the consideration of that impact that is the reasoning behind the special school intention here.

So we are confident that the consent measure, as drafted, is focused on the right groups of children and that it is proportionate. I hope that I have demonstrated the proportionality of this measure and that it is part of a wider set of activities that we have discussed previously on the Bill, about strengthening requirements to protect children at the earliest opportunity. I hope therefore that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Even more briefly, I did not hear the Minister’s response in relation to children who have been on a child protection plan. Could she be very kind and write to me, in the interests of time, because that is also extremely important?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, I recognise that. There are still questions about burden there, but I understand the noble Baroness’s point, and particularly her reference to the Sara Sharif case. On that case, we are still awaiting the detailed review from the safeguarding panel in order to be able to determine the causes there, but I understand her point and will write to her about that specific group of children.

On that basis, I hope noble Lords will feel able to withdraw or not move their amendments.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her replies. I look forward to meetings after today to go into these matters further, but I very much understand what my noble friend Lady Barran is saying with her Amendment 207. It convinces me that, if we can insert a tribunal into this process, we will make all these difficult questions flow much more easily for everybody. However, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, there is a large number of probing amendments in this group and, in the interests of making progress, I will not comment on most of them. I am very sympathetic to the intent behind Amendment 209 in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. I would hope very much that a child who is a young carer would be supported to stay in school, given the obvious risk that their education would suffer and conflict with the care needs of their parent if at home, but I have no further comments on the other amendments in this group.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in group 5. These amendments mainly concern the requirement to seek consent should a parent wish to withdraw their child from school in particular circumstances. Just to reiterate, we recognise that most home-educating families provide safe and suitable education in the best interests of their children. The consent measure applies only to specific groups of children—where there are child protection concerns or the child has a special school placement. We are confident that this is a proportionate response to help to ensure that these children’s needs are met and are protected.

With respect to the detail in the amendments, I turn first to Amendment 208, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which would remove the requirement for a school to notify the local authority responsible for the child if that is different from the local authority where the school is located when a parent intends to withdraw the child to home educate. To be clear, schools will hold the child’s address; therefore, they will know which local authorities to notify. Working Together to Safeguard Children, the statutory safeguarding guidance, is clear that schools should be included in child protection activity and planning, and therefore should also be aware of which local authorities should be contacted. It is crucial that schools retain the responsibility to verify whether consent is needed for home education. Without this, children in scope of the consent process could be mistakenly removed from school rolls without permission, or the consent decision could be delayed.

Turning to Amendment 209, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young, which has rightly received the most attention in this group of amendments and would require a carer’s needs assessment before the child is withdrawn from school, I commend the noble Lord on championing the needs of young carers. To be clear, I certainly do not demur from his overarching argument—and that of other noble Lords, such as my noble friend Lord Watson—that young carers are in need of specific attention, care and consideration from local authorities because of the enormously difficult position they find themselves in.

The local authority will have ample opportunity to fully consider the child’s circumstances as part of the consent decision-making process. In fact, that is the whole point of having that process. Of course, under Section 436C(2), which we touched on in, I think, the group before last, local authorities will also be able—be expected, in fact, I would suggest—in the case where a child is a young carer and is being educated at home, to record and keep relevant information about that child. If they were being home educated, the fact that they were a carer would be an important part of the information that a local authority should record about them, precisely in order to make sure that they are getting the support that they need.

The Children Act 1989 already provides robust safeguarding measures for young carers, who may be recognised as children in need, ensuring that their support needs are assessed by their local authority. Of course, we will ensure that our reforms to both education and children’s social care work for all disadvantaged children and young people, including young carers.

I think it was interesting that some people, in responding to this amendment, were arguing that being a young carer should not be a reason why a child could not be home educated, and others were arguing that it would be better for that child to remain in school, with support, and be able to learn without the relentless role, as I am sure it is, of being a carer. I think this suggests that there are probably differing circumstances for young carers, and it reinforces the general point that local authorities should take seriously their responsibilities to fully consider the needs of young carers and to ensure that their support needs are being assessed.

Turning to Amendments 216 and 217—

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

Before the noble Baroness leaves Amendment 209, will she say something, or perhaps write to me, about the delay in getting a needs assessment for young carers?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Sorry, yes, I remember that the noble Lord asked about that. I will write to him on the broader issue of the speed with which young carers are getting their assessments. I will follow that up separately.

Amendments 216 and 217, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to remove or amend the requirement for local authorities to notify any other parent of the child of their home education consent decision. In law, all parents have responsibility for their child’s education, and it is therefore necessary that all parents are notified, unless there are exceptional circumstances. Amendment 216 would remove this. Including exceptional circumstances provides safeguards where a parent does not have to be notified: for example, in cases of domestic abuse. Of course, children must be protected from domestic abuse. Amendment 217, however, states that

“exceptional circumstances will always apply where domestic abuse is alleged or established”.

We are concerned that this could have unintended consequences, including a parent making an accusation of domestic abuse to prevent the other being informed of the consent decision. Again, sadly, local authorities are quite used to the way they need to behave and the care they need to take in circumstances of allegations of domestic abuse. However, we will provide further detail regarding what “exceptional circumstances” means in this context in statutory guidance. As I have said previously, we will engage with stakeholders when updating that guidance.

I turn to Amendments 218 and 381 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei. Amendment 218 would require local authority staff to have at least two years of personal home education experience of their own children before making consent decisions. Amendment 381 would require at least one person with direct home education experience on safeguarding panels for decisions related to home-educated children. I think it is possible to be an experienced practitioner without specific lived experience; however, that can make a good, important and interesting contribution. I am not sure that the noble Lord’s experience about men not being able to work with women giving birth would be recognised by the large number of male obstetricians operating around the country, but that just proves that, while lived experience and, most certainly—

[Lord Wei (Con)]

To clarify, I was in no way saying that men could not work with women in childbirth. I was trying to make a point about speaking as authoritatively on the process of giving birth as a man as if you were a woman. In no way would I want the Minister to interpret me as saying that one could not be a male midwife or anything like that, but, as some of us know, when in certain circles I have talked about something feeling like childbirth, I have quite rightly been told off, because I have never given birth. There is something about that lived experience that I am pointing to. I am not making the point that people cannot work in certain professional settings in that sense.

We are crossing over from professional expertise into lived experience, saying that a parent can or cannot raise their child and parent-educate. Even if you were to use the professional argument, I am not sure that having that determined by someone who may not have that experience—when, right now, even the professional in this context is not trained in the philosophies and the different nuances of home education—is quite right in this context.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I certainly think it is right that we should attempt to ensure that people with lived experience are a key part of all areas of policy. That is why, for example, I talked earlier about the home educators’ forum that the department has brought together to help to inform our work here and the guidance. The point that the noble Lord was making went well beyond that. The suggestion that you could not make a professional social work or education decision in this area unless you had lived experience would make this area wholly different from any other area that professionals were making decisions about, and that is the stumbling block for this amendment.

We have a workforce of trained, dedicated practitioners who understand and champion the needs of the children they work with across schools and children’s social care. These amendments, in effect, would exclude around 99% of the population and, of course, would assume that one professional’s experience of home education is reflective of all parents. Working Together guidance is clear which practitioners should be involved in safeguarding decision-making and the importance of including children and families in that as well. We are confident that the Bill measures, and wider children’s social care reform that strengthens the protection of children, will mean that local authorities can draw on a range of expertise when making decisions—and so they should.

Amendment 220 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 224 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would allow a child not to attend school prior to receiving consent from the local authority. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who was not here for the earlier parts of the debate—for which I do not condemn her—that the points she made about the very successful home education experience of the children she was talking about who are close to her has very much been reflected in the comments that other noble Lords made earlier. We are clear that there are many children for whom home education has been a very fulfilling and successful process, and there is nothing in this legislation that removes, for example, the right of parents to make that decision to educate their children at home.

With these consent provisions, however—and in wanting to ensure that if a child is being educated at home, they are at least seen and understood to be being educated elsewhere than in school—we want to make sure that every child is seen. That is the expression that we were using earlier, and that is what we are aiming to do here. Also with respect to the consent provisions, we are concerned about those children for whom there might be particular reasons for a local authority to look carefully at the decision to grant consent by virtue of them being subject to a Section 47 inquiry, under a child protection plan or requiring the specific facilities of a special school.

For many children, a school is a protective environment and a means of offering essential support. I know that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness share our desire to reduce the risk of children falling through gaps and potentially going missing. It is therefore important that a child continues to attend school until a local authority has determined the consent request. Removing a child before this could subject them to unsuitable education or increase the risk of harm. I am sure that the noble Baroness could envisage a situation where, for legitimate reasons, a Section 47 inquiry is instituted where there are concerns about a child being at risk of very significant harm and—I am afraid that we have seen examples of this—a parent, thinking that this would be a way of avoiding it, decides at that point that they want to remove their child from school. In those circumstances, I do not think that any of us would want that child to be removed from what may well be the protective environment of a school before the decision had been made about consent.

For all children who are not subject to the consent process, which will be the vast majority of children whose parents want to home-educate them, all we are expecting is that the parent notifies the school that they want to remove their child from the roll and that the school has the opportunity to check, therefore, whether they fall within the criteria of a child for whom consent would be necessary or whether they are subject to a school attendance order. It would not be unreasonable to expect a child to carry on attending school while that relatively straightforward administrative check was made.

Amendment 222, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would require consent decisions to be revisited sooner than six months after the previous request when new evidence becomes available or the child has been disadvantaged by the decision. This six-month timeframe is proportionate and is provided to reduce multiple requests regarding the same child. There will be situations where it may be appropriate for the local authority to consider applications sooner—for example, if there has been a substantial change in the child’s circumstances. A local authority can do this under the clause as drafted, if it so wishes. I am sure that the noble Lord could also envisage a situation where a parent who was unhappy about the consent decision made by a local authority expected the decision to be revisited perhaps every week. That is the reason for setting this timeframe.

Amendment 223 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, is about establishing an independent ombudsman. I understand the theme that is developing here about independent review capacity. Notwithstanding that, the Government do not believe that it is necessary. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, uses almost every opportunity to push his tribunal suggestion. I am interested in whether the proposition now is that we should have both a tribunal and an ombudsman in these cases. Of course it is right that there should be a process for referring local authority decisions that parents are not satisfied with; however, it should be uncomplicated. It is right that the final decision should rest with the Secretary of State, or Welsh Ministers, who will fully and objectively consider the merits of the case.

Amendment 225, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would remove the definition of the “relevant local authority” that is responsible for making a home education consent decision. For children subject to a child protection inquiry or plan, the local authority where a child lives is responsible for making the consent decision. They will have the information needed to make informed decisions and should therefore determine consent. For children in special schools, who are not also subject to child protection processes, consent is needed from the local authority that maintains the plan, just as is the case under existing legislation. This new subsection provides legal clarity for parents, schools and local authorities.

Amendment 403, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, requests emergency court hearings for parents where a local authority seeks to remove, or removes, a child from their parents due to concerns arising from home education. To reiterate, the Children Act 1989 is clear that the threshold for care proceedings is significant harm. Home education as a singular factor would not reach the threshold for care proceedings. Child protection concerns about a home-educated child must be addressed through the same process as any other child facing harm. This includes parents’ rights to challenge decisions about the removal of a child into care.

Finally, Amendment 418, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would require local authorities to refer individuals who file false or malicious allegations against home-educating parents, who then may be subject to civil penalties. There is a concern that this could deter valid concerns about home-educated children being reported, potentially leaving children at risk. Local authorities have robust processes in place to identify whether a child is suffering, or likely to suffer, harm and appropriately respond to malicious allegations, regardless of a child’s educational status.

I said earlier that it would not only be in the case of home-educated children that a local authority might have to make a decision about whether a complaint about a child’s parents was well founded or malicious. Home-educating parents have the same rights as other parents. Families can seek support from the local authority or police advice if intentional false reports are being made against them.

For the reasons I have outlined, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I am grateful for the Minister’s extensive responses to the amendments. She is right that I will keep coming back about tribunals. I am not attached to any particular form—a tribunal, an ombudsman or what the Government propose. My concern is that it should be effective, and my experience of the Secretary of State route has been that it is not. I am very happy to take the opportunity of the gap between now and 1 September to learn more about the Government’s proposals as to how the Secretary of State route should work, and it may be that I will come to love it as much as she does—that would be nice.

On Amendment 208, knowing a child’s address is not the same as knowing their local authority. There is nothing in the address that says what the local authority is; you need to have a lookup. Local education authorities are not necessarily coterminous with what we think, so the Government would have to provide a lookup. Also, in circumstances where children are in joint custody, the question of their address can be complicated and moot. In both circumstances, there needs to be some help from the Government to enable a school to be sure that, in all circumstances, it determines the right local authority with responsibility. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The noble Lord is right and I am grateful to him for again drawing my attention and that of the Committee to his drafting. I guess one would then need to consider the group of children in special schools, because I would be surprised if the noble Lord’s drafting applied to so many of them.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

At the heart of this group of amendments is the concern about the use and definition of the expression “best interest of the child”.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others suggested that the use of the “best interests” ground in Clause 30 is a fundamental change to parents’ rights. I reiterate the quite narrow scope of the use of “best interests” in this clause. Remember that what we are dealing with here is not the fundamental decision about whether a parent has the right to remove their child from a school to educate them at home. They have that right, unless some very specific circumstances are met—when they may still have the right, but we introduce a process for the local authority to consent to whether it is appropriate for that to happen. I do not think I need to run through once again that narrow category of children and circumstances where, as we are proposing here, the local authority should be enabled at least to consider the issue of whether, in those circumstances, it is appropriate for the child to be removed from school.

I know that some noble Lords do not believe that there should be any need for consent and therefore do not believe that the criteria that the Government have chosen of Section 47 inquiries, child protection plans or special schools are appropriate. I accept that but, if you do have a consent system—and there is quite a lot of support for the idea that an additional stage is appropriate for children in these circumstances—you then need to decide the criteria for the local authority’s decision-making. New subsection (6)(b) makes it clear what those criteria should be in these very specific circumstances.

It does not feel unreasonable to me that those criteria should be what the local authority believes to be the best interests of the child. We can assume that the parents believe in the best interests of their child, but in these very specific circumstances, because of the nature of the children, we think the child’s rights might override the view of their parents.

So the first criterion is what is in the child’s best interests; the second is whether or not there are suitable arrangements made for the child to receive education, other than at school. I understand that some noble Lords do not believe that those are the right criteria, but I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that this is somehow a fundamental change in the rights of parents. We recognise that most parents have their children’s best interests at heart and tirelessly advocate for them, often in difficult circumstances. That should be the basis on which parents are able to make decisions, in most circumstances, about whether or not their children are removed from school to be educated otherwise.

However, there are situations where a child could receive a suitable education at home but it is not in their best interests to do so—for example, if there are concerns that the child is being exposed to domestic abuse or extremism. In those cases, the school can act as a protective factor that enables issues to be escalated quickly.

I hope that my argument about the reason for the choice of those criteria also covers the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. He recommends that a local authority should automatically refuse consent for any child where the local authority has concluded that they are suffering or likely to suffer significant harm following a child protection inquiry, but child protection is complex and practitioners must gather a range of information and evidence from multiagency partners and others who work with the child and their family, and children can experience harm from both inside and outside the home. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to prohibit all such children from being removed from school for home education.

The consent measure rightly requires the local authority to consider the individual circumstances of each child. It is probably worth reminding ourselves that the consent measure is not preventing parents in these circumstances from home-educating; it is simply saying that the local authority should consider whether that is appropriate and use the two criteria that have been set out in the Bill.

Amendment 212, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei—

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

I think I understand the Minister’s points, but could I just pick up the slightly pedantic point that I was making? If it is an “or”, it implies that suitable arrangements could be made for the education of the child otherwise than at school and that the local authority still considers that it would be in the child’s best interest to receive education by regular attendance at school. It is a slightly pedantic point and I am very happy to just register it rather than require an answer. As I say, I think it is the law of the excluded middle.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I understand the noble Lord’s point. If I am wrong on this then I will clarify afterwards, but you could envisage a situation where the problem was not the nature of the education being provided but whether, given the circumstances that the child found themselves in, it was in their best interests not to be in a school. The protective element of being in a school could be the most important point there.

[Lord Wei (Con)]

To build on that, if you had a local authority officer with not much experience of home education—given that that is apparently not available—who is shown suitable education arrangements by the parent planning to take their child into home education, then that first new sub-paragraph could allow them still to override those arrangements, which they have agreed are suitable, by saying that they think it would be best if the child attended a school. How do we deal with that precise situation which she has said could happen? Do we not need to work this out so that our wonderful local authority officials are not confused when reading this guidance and say, “Well, I can still override the parents because I think it is right that they stay in school, because that is in their best interests”?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

That is what I was saying. You could envisage circumstances in which there is a child on a child protection plan, notwithstanding that there might be suitable education, where the protective role of being in school would be in that child’s best interests and being away from the school might be against them, regardless of what the other education provision might be. Let us not forget that this would be a consideration only for children for whom there are child protection concerns or for children in special schools, where, to be fair, it would more likely be about the appropriateness of the education, but could be about the other support available for a child that would not be available in other circumstances, notwithstanding the question of education, because of their needs that required them to be put into the special school in the first place.

[Lord Wei (Con)]

I can fully appreciate that, given the scope here, if there was a safeguarding concern then one might want to pursue the route the Minister is talking about as the officer in question is trying to make that decision. However, the way that this is worded, even if the parents or family subject to Section 47 have found a way to provide suitable education, gives the officer the room to say, “I am concerned about the safety of the child”, when it is more that they do not like the education being provided.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I think I might speak for others in the Committee in saying that this level of detail could be better dealt with face to face with officials, which would allow us to do another group before the House rises.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Amendment 212, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to raise the threshold for the local authority to refuse consent to home-educate. This would mean that, if a parent was concerned that their child was being harmed by attending their current school, the local authority would be unable to refuse consent unless it provided evidence of a standard sufficient to satisfy a court that withdrawal would result in greater harm.

Let me be clear that parents’ concerns regarding bullying or their child’s mental health are serious, and these issues should be discussed with the school and local authority. I can quite understand why parents might want to remove their child from school in those circumstances.

However, it is important to remember that the requirement for local authorities to consent to home education relates to a specific set of children who are subject to a child protection plan or inquiry or who are in a special school. This measure is intended to ensure that the local authority takes a considered, proportionate and informed decision for these groups. Eligible children should not be withdrawn from school for home education if it is not in their best interests or if education outside school is not going to be suitable. I want to be clear that local authorities must evidence their decision-making, but requiring it to the degree that the amendment suggests is totally impractical. Local authorities are well placed to make this best interests and suitability judgment. They possess the required information and have access to multi-agency expertise as part of their child protection and education duties, and parents’ views will be taken into account by local authorities as part of their decision-making process.

Amendment 215, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to ensure that a refusal to grant consent to home-educate is taken against the background of the characteristics of the school that the child might attend. Just to be clear, the consent process is not intended to keep children in a specific school or to keep children in a school that is not right for them. Parents remain free to remove their child from one school to attend a different school that they believe can better support their child’s needs, for example. I hope that assures the noble Lord that there is no intention that a child could or should be forced to remain in a specific school, so the need to compare different schools is unnecessary. I hope noble Lords feel that I have provided sufficient assurance and that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Yes, I would very much like to pursue some of the details of this in meetings. The practicalities of what she described do not coincide with my experience of trying to get children moved from one school to another, particularly special schools. I do not see how it works. She described local authorities as fountainheads of expertise in this area. That is not my experience. It used to be, but not now. These are areas in which I really want to understand more about the Government’s reasoning and how they are approaching things.

There is a deep principle here. It is only a small footprint on the first bit of beach, but the direction is clear. If it applies to children with SEN, why does it not apply to everybody? If the local authority’s judgment is better for those children, why is it not better for everybody? If the local authority’s judgment is best for children who are being taken out of school, why is it not best for children who never go into school? There is no edge here. Once this direction has been taken, it will carry on, and we must question it hard at its first instance and not shy away from that just because it is small. But for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

Returning to the issue of the cost of uniforms, and cost has been the issue with widespread agreement across the House, the single most expensive items of school clothing are not uniforms but the fashion brands that children will urge their parents to buy for them. I hope very much that the Minister takes these amendments in the constructive spirit in which they are tabled.

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

My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments in group one. Just to be clear, the Government believe that uniforms have an important role to play in our schools, for many of the reasons that noble Lords have outlined, but we are committed to cutting the cost of school uniforms for families. This is why we have chosen to support families by limiting in this Bill the number of branded items that schools can require pupils to have. This will enable parents to buy more items from a range of retailers, including high street retailers, allowing them the flexibility to make spending decisions that suit their circumstances.

On Amendment 195 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, we want to ensure that any action we take provides schools and parents with clarity and offers parents choice in how to manage the costs of school uniforms. Ensuring that parents can buy more items from a range of retailers gives them that flexibility. The argument has been made that a cost cap is simpler than the Government’s proposals. I cannot see that argument. A cost cap would mean that schools would have to review uniform policies annually, as the noble Lord said, to ensure that they remained within the cap. It could mean schools changing their uniforms more frequently, thereby increasing overall costs and restricting choice for parents. A cost cap would be complex for schools and suppliers to administer, and the need to meet a particular price for items could also increase a school’s reliance on specific suppliers, whereas a competitive market benefits all parties, allowing parents to take advantage of lower prices, better-quality goods and services, new and innovative products, and greater choice.

Responding to the points made about the school uniform grant, we recognise that parents are struggling with the cost of uniforms—that is why we are bringing forward these provisions—and that in England some local authorities provide discretionary grants to help with buying school uniforms in cases of financial hardship. We are facing difficult choices about how we best support families. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, in a rather dismissive comment about government officials, which has been a bit of a regrettable theme this afternoon, suggested that it was somehow unreasonable of the Government to be considering the cost of the proposals they are bringing forward. A national grant, even if targeted to those most in need, would be a considerable commitment in the current financial climate, so, rather than subsidising expensive uniforms through a grant, this Government have chosen to reduce the cost of uniforms for all parents through these provisions.

On Amendments 195A and 195B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, as previously mentioned, it is a key priority of these provisions that we provide clarity on what the measure means for parents. These amendments could create confusion for parents about whether a given branded item of uniform would be captured within the statutory limit, depending on how it was acquired. There is also a risk that schools may subsequently attempt to charge parents for expensive replacements if branded items provided for free are lost or damaged. Furthermore, allowing schools to set different uniform policies depending on the school’s ability to provide or source branded items for free could also risk increasing inequalities between schools and pupils.

Amendments 196 and 197 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, seek to increase the number of items that secondary and middle schools can require from three to five, or six if one of those items is a tie. We believe that the limits in the measure that the Government are bringing forward provide the best balance between reducing costs for parents and ensuring that schools, parents and pupils can continue to experience the benefits that allowing a small number of branded items can bring, while ensuring that schools retain the flexibility needed to set uniform policies that work for them. Increasing these limits would significantly limit the impact of this measure, depriving many parents of the opportunity to enjoy greater choice in where to buy their child’s uniform and the flexibility to make spending decisions that suit their circumstances.

Amendment 197A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young, is, as written, as opposed to some of the points the noble Lord made, which I will come to, unnecessary as the measure does not restrict the ability of schools to offer branded items for sale or to provide or loan branded uniform items, such as competition kit, as long as these items are optional. This is an important point, because there has been some suggestion that it would not be possible for schools to offer branded items or to provide or loan branded items. It would be, but they would have to be optional. If wearing the item is optional for participation in the activity, it is not counted in the limit of branded items.

We also do not want to place an undue burden on schools by suggesting—

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I am sorry, perhaps the Minister is about to come to this: that is what normally happens when I stand up. I think my noble friend was saying that in the CCF, you have to wear the CCF uniform. Similarly, if you are representing the school in a sports competition, I am not sure it is really optional. But maybe the Minister is about to clarify that.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

On the sports competition, I think it is wholly possible to envisage that the school would provide a set of branded uniform for the school sports team, while not suggesting that it was compulsory to wear it. Of course, I understand all the arguments for wanting to have a clear identity for the school while you are doing sports. On the point about cadets, which I was specifically coming to—sorry, I will make one other point before I come to cadets. There is a challenge. We do not want to place an undue burden on schools by suggesting that they should routinely be supplying additional, expensive, branded uniform items to their pupils at no cost.

The point about cadets is important. We do not intend the legislation to prevent cadets, and we will consider how to make that clear. Our view is that the legislation does not do that, but we understand the point being made and we will ensure that that is made clear, because of the benefits of students being able to take part in cadets in the way in which the noble Lord outlined.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Just to be clear on this, I heard the Minister say that, in the case of cadets, where wearing a uniform is required and it is given for free, the Government will clarify that that is acceptable. She also said that she does not want to place undue burdens on schools, understandably, but, in a sports competition, whether pupils wear the kit that is provided for free is going to be optional. That feels unworkable and very inconsistent.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

What I said was that this measure does not prevent schools providing or loaning branded uniform items, such as competition kit, but, if that were to be compulsory, that of course would need to be included in the three branded items. As long as those items are optional, I do not think it is too difficult to envisage that schools might be able to make that work.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

So if the shirt provided by the school is blue and the opposition plays in red, and this has all been arranged in advance, and some pupils decide to be difficult and turn up in red, which will create chaos, that is okay, but if you say “You’ve all got to turn up in blue”, that is breaking the rules. It does not sound very practical. I ask the Minister to take a bit of time with people who run schools and officials to see whether we can work our way through this in a practical way, while at the same time trying to make sure that all children are treated equally and that we limit the costs as far as we can.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am certainly willing to continue thinking about the issue of school sports, because it is very much not the intention of the Government to prevent the loaning of branded items for school sports. On the example that the noble Lord mentioned, in my day, when I played hockey, if we ended up playing against a school with a similarly coloured kit, we wore bibs to distinguish ourselves. My point is that I do not think it is impossible to overcome this. Let us come back to it. I take the point that noble Lords have made here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, when the Minister said that we are working across government, what actually is happening? Is there a review? Is there something specific about school uniforms? Is it just about PFAS? Can we get some details so that we who are concerned can keep an eye on it?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The point I was making was that it relates to all clothes and is considering the risks from PFAS used in textiles, but I will be happy to provide further information about how that work is being carried out. In the interim, our statutory guidance is already clear that it is important that schools consider sustainability and ethical supply chains, as well as engaging with parents and pupils when tendering for uniform contracts. I know that many high street retailers already offer school uniforms without PFAS treatments for many of the reasons that noble Lords have outlined today. Furthermore, UK product safety laws require all consumer products to be safe, and manufacturers must ensure the safety of products before they are placed on the market. We already have robust systems in place to identify the impact of chemicals under the UK registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—UK REACH—and to regulate them effectively.

On Amendment 484 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, discrimination has no place in our schools or, in fact, in society. Our guidance is clear that in setting uniform and appearance policies, including on hair, we expect schools to meet their existing obligations under equalities law not to discriminate unlawfully. Guidance also already exists for schools on preventing hair discrimination, published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The noble Baroness had a lengthy list of cases. I do not know the details of all those, but I think it is reasonable for schools to develop and implement behaviour policies, to uphold school rules and to use sanctions that are fair and proportionate, and that could well also relate to uniform and expected appearance within schools.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Would the Minister care to address my point about the fact that we have great concern about pupils not in school, yet we are excluding them for this reason? It is reducing the amount of education that pupils are getting.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I do not think the main reason why pupils are being excluded from school is because of issues to do with their hair, but I do think it is right for schools to have the ability to set the criteria and the constraints within which they expect their pupils to behave. While not being across all the individual cases that the noble Baroness outlined, I can imagine circumstances in which it would be justifiable to take action against students who perhaps persistently fail to comply with the rules that have been set by a school, including about their appearance. We have had a wide-ranging debate, and I hope I have responded to all the points raised.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

Will the Minister go away and consider the fate of the branded book bag, which means so much to primary and infant schools? It should not be included as part of the three, because it is a way of encouraging reading and literacy in our schools.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I also very much enjoyed the bookbags my boys carried backwards and forwards to school, but I am not sure that trumps what the Government are trying to achieve in reducing the cost of school uniforms. Of course, any school that felt that was crucial could of course include it in the three branded items in the legislative proposals.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

From the debate we have just had, It is clear noble Lords have a keen interest in school uniforms. I am going to keep my submission brief. I thank everyone; I think we are all on the same page in the sense that we want to reduce the cost of school uniforms. We have different ideas, but that is what your Lordships’ House is about; we come here together to improve legislation from the other place.

I am keen that we pursue this. I see that in the other place the Government are in a spirit of reflection and review of policies. I hope that spirit wheels its way down the Corridor to here. Then we can also say that, yes, the Government have an ambition of reducing the cost, but we also have ideas that warrant looking at. They may well be ideas that work better. I hope the Government think about it as we move to the next stage of the Bill, so I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 195.

--- Later in debate ---

The register will have downsides in terms of privacy and diversion of effort. It will intimidate some parents out of home education altogether, and it will begin to change the philosophy that guides home education. The current philosophy is that parents have the responsibility for their own children’s education. The requirement for local authority permission and the huge amount of information demanded by the state go in a different direction. They are starting to tell parents that the state knows best. That is why I personally am nervous about not just Clause 31 but many of these proposals: we are seeing the erosion of the vital principle that freedom and autonomy are fundamentally important and that the state does not have the right to go anywhere it wants at will. I am sure we will come back to all these issues, but, for the time being, I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I acknowledge that it is unusual to rise at this point in the debate. I recognise that we have lots of detailed groups ahead of us in considering the issues in these clauses, but I thought it might be helpful and important to set out the intention behind the children not in school measures before we get into further detail on the technical elements.

But, first, I pay tribute to those noble Members of this House who have previously supported legislative measures introducing registers of children not in school: the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, who did excellent work in this space as part of her role in government; the noble Lord, Lord Storey, who has tirelessly worked to support and craft legislation; and Lord Soley, who has now retired from this House, who did a tremendous amount of work in campaigning for these registers.

I also thank Members of the House for their engagement to date, including the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who met with officials, the noble Lord, Lord Wei, and my noble friend Lord Hacking who met my colleague Stephen Morgan, the Minister for Early Years. The engagement and overall support for these measures from all sides of the House have been welcome and instructive, but I recognise the detailed questions that noble Lords have, as reflected in the many groups we have ahead of us. On that basis, I want to be clear that it is important for this engagement to continue as we look at the detail of how this measure is implemented.

We also continue to engage with the home-educating community. The previous Government held a consultation on a children not in school register in 2019, which received around 5,000 responses, mainly from parents. We have built on this engagement and have an ongoing implementation forum made up of home educators and other stakeholders, as well as other engagement opportunities with officials and Ministers. We will also consult on the regulations and statutory guidance required for implementation of the measures, which will provide further opportunity for engagement. I have given the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, a commitment that this engagement will continue following the end of Committee. Input from noble Lords, as well as local authorities, home educators and others, will be invaluable as we move towards drafting the regulations and statutory guidance required for the successful implementation of the measures.

On the purpose behind the children not in school measures, I know that noble Lords will agree that every child has the right to a safe and suitable education, whether at school or at home. This is the underpinning principle of these measures. The legal responsibility for a child’s education rests with their parents. This Bill does not change that. Some parents choose to fulfil their responsibility by exercising their right to educate their child at home. We recognise this right and we know that many home-educating parents work hard to ensure that their child receives a suitable—in fact, often an excellent—education.

Unfortunately, however, that is not the case for all children. Where children are missing out on education, it is essential that they can be identified quickly and supported. Local authorities have an existing legal duty to make arrangements to identify children not in school in their areas who are not receiving a suitable education, but this is undermined by the lack of obligation on parents to notify their local authority that they are home educating. England and Wales are outliers among western nations in this respect. We are in a small minority whereby there is no requirement for parents to inform authorities that they are home educating. The noble Lord, Lord Frost—I think there may be a theme among some noble Lords on this—believes, or fears, that what is proposed in this legislation is an overstretching of the intrusion of the state into the issue of home education. I simply identify to him, as I have suggested, that England and Wales in fact have very light—arguably too light at the moment—regulation of home education. Even if all the provisions in this Bill come to fruition, we will still have a very light legislative approach, because we recognise the right of parents to choose to home educate.

We also recognise that the current system makes it too easy for children not in school to fall through the gaps. The department, the Government, indeed all of us, cannot ignore the rising numbers of children not in school. Our latest data shows that, as of October 2024, there are 111,700 children known to be home educated and 39,200 children known to be missing education.

An effective system of registration for children not in school is therefore long overdue. Parties across the political spectrum have attempted to introduce one and parents recognise that registers are common-sense. A recent poll commissioned by my department shows that three-quarters of parents surveyed believe that parents should be required to register their home-educated children with local councils. Together, I am confident that we can deliver on this long called-for system of registration and ensure that it works for local authorities, parents and children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I think this is a very important amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Meston. It reminds us that, in this part of the Bill, we dealing not just with parents who choose to educate their children at home but with some very substantial problems that state education has in not keeping hold of and looking after children who are nominally registered at school. I will come on to the question of unregistered alternative education, to which the state commits many children, in a later amendment. This is about looking after the children and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has put his finger very firmly on what we ought to be doing.

If there is a whole structure being built here to get better information on home-educated children, what is the point of it if we are not already using the information we have on children who are registered? Is there actually a responsive system that all this extra information is going to be fed into? Are we actually focusing on the children who need our help, or are we just making life more difficult for a lot of very responsible and successful parents? I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the Government’s approach to elective home education. I felt that there was a good deal in common in our approaches and I very much hope to be able to build on that as we look at these amendments.

I will very much endeavour not to take up the time of the House if I can avoid it. In that context, picking up on the Minister’s very kind offer of conversations with officials, might it not help if those conversations could take place between today and 1 September? That would mean that I would not have to take up time in Committee: we could short-circuit it before then. I am in the UK all August, but perhaps that might not amuse her officials.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I can clarify for the noble Lord that that is what I had in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for the clarity she brought with her earlier remarks. She set out the objectives of the Government and her commitment, on behalf of colleagues in the department, to work with Peers across the House—it looks as though that will be in August—to explore their concerns and, where possible, to address them. I also thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for the constructive tone of his opening remarks.

The principle of having a register for children not in school has long held cross-party support and, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, described, there are very different groups of children who are educated at home. What the debate has started to explore is that, in our eagerness to safeguard vulnerable children, which we must try to do well, and to support those children who have struggled in mainstream school, we must also make every effort not to stigmatise, or to treat with suspicion, parents who make a positive choice to home-educate their children.

This group and many of the others which follow highlight the complexity of creating a home-schooling register and the multiplicity of details that need to be considered. I note that Amendments 202C, 227, 227A and 286 and the opposition to Clause 31 standing part of the Bill are all probing, and I look forward to the Minister’s clarifications. I thought, unsurprisingly, that my noble friend Lord Frost made some very valid points on the risk of duplication of supervision and safeguarding in relation to children who are flexi-schooled.

On the individual amendments, there are two in this group which we support: Amendment 226 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and Amendment 279 in the name of my noble friends Lord Nash and Lord Agnew. With regard to children missing education and Amendment 226, most people would be surprised if it was not already a duty to inform the court if proceedings relating to the welfare of the child were under way and that child was not in school. It seems to me highly relevant information for the court to take into consideration, since there is a lot more risk attached to a child who is classified as missing education as opposed to a child who is electively home-educated. I am not sure about the practicality of consistent arrangements to address persistent non-attendance or irregular attendance, as the noble Lord’s amendment sets out, but I absolutely support the spirit of his amendment that the family courts should be made aware of the child’s situation and the risks that accompany it.

Amendment 279 in the names of my noble friends Lord Nash and Lord Agnew raised the important point of what a local authority can do if it has concerns that a child is not receiving a suitable education or, indeed, any real education at all. I hope that the Government have thought about this and have a plan for it. There is a great deal of detail in new Section 436C in Clause 31 of the Bill, but nothing about the actual education that a child receives, just the time spent and with whom.

On Amendment 233A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I remember very well the meeting with a group of home-educators—in fact, I look below Bar and there they are again, in the same place as last time; it is like Groundhog Day. The amendment would remove new Section 436C, which defines in detail the content and process for maintaining the proposed children not in school registers. While I agree with the noble Lord that the drafting appears unnecessarily detailed and potentially intrusive, it is important to have clarity about what will be recorded and how it will be kept up to date.

I also cannot support my noble friend Lord Lucas’s opposition to Clause 31 standing part of the Bill, although I appreciate that this was designed to give the House a chance to explore the principles that the Government intend to follow, which we have heard from the Minister. My noble friend will remember that, in the 2022 Schools Bill, we were very clear that a register for children not in school was necessary. I think the current Government have improved on our original proposal in one way, with the increased focus on safeguarding in Clause 30—although, as I said in relation to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I regret the extent of detail that is required in the Bill. Of course, we will probe in subsequent groups the balance between the clear right of parents to educate their children at home and the right of a child to receive a suitable education, but the principle of a local authority register for children not in school has very broad support.

My understanding is that the remaining amendments in this group are also all probing amendments. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have heard, this group of amendments relates to the purpose and scope of children not in school registers. As the first group in consideration of these clauses, it has, rightly, raised some broad issues of principle as well, so I will speak for slightly longer than I will, I hope, on subsequent groups to put some of the important principles on the record and, I hope, to begin to allay some of the concerns expressed.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for the important points he raised. I want to address the principal points, as I say, before turning to other noble Lords’ amendments in this grouping. During today’s debate, we will hear much about parents’ rights, so I want to be clear up front again that parents already have and will continue to have a right to home-educate their children, in line with their preferences, values or religious beliefs. On some of the specific points that the noble Lord raised, we will give further consideration in Clause 36 to the nature of the places in which children are educated and whether they should be further inspected and regulated.

The noble Lord is right that we are attempting here to make sure that we know where children are and that they are seen. It is not about preventing them being educated elsewhere than in schools or necessarily seeing that as a risk. It is important that we do not, as some noble Lords have suggested, view the register as a statement that there is something illegitimate in the choices made by many parents to educate their children. It is about ensuring that every child, however, is seen. It is also important that we do not lose sight of parents’ responsibilities and children’s rights. The noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Nash, made this point very well. Parental rights are not absolute. They must be able to be evidence to local authorities that education is suitable. That is the existing position and the Bill does not change it. Children not in school registers will help ensure that children’s right to a safe, suitable education is protected. It is the Government’s ambition that no child falls through the gaps in this respect. The information that we are asking parents to provide for the registers is underpinned by that very singular goal.

To be absolutely clear, the registers are not intended to drive a wedge between local authorities and parents. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and other noble Lords that positive engagement between parents and local authorities is essential. I also recognise the concerns of noble Lords that we are careful about the burdens and the process for gathering and recording information for the register. This is an area where looking at it in more detail with officials in my department may well help provide some assurance to noble Lords.

Information recorded on registers and shared with the department could increase transparency and accountability; for example, by improving our understanding of reasons for home education and local authority practices. Why people choose to home-educate and accountability for local authorities are both important.

I understand that data protection is a concern for many and we take it very seriously, including our data protection obligations. We are committed to high standards of information security, privacy and transparency. All data will be processed only for a specific purpose, which in this case is regarding a child’s education, welfare or safeguarding. Local authorities will also be subject to the UK GDPR as the domain data controllers. We will talk in more detail about the nature of the information collected and its use in some later groups.

I will now move on to address in more detail other points that have been raised by noble Lords, beginning with Amendment 226, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. Tackling persistent absence and ensuring that we can trace and support children who are identified as missing school due to persistent absence is a very important part of our mission to break down the barriers to opportunity. I thank the noble Lord for raising this important issue. However, it is not necessary to set up a new system to track and trace these children. Schools are already required to return the information outlined in the noble Lord’s amendment to their local authority. Schools are also required to share information on attendance with the Secretary of State through the school census and the department’s daily attendance data collection. As outlined in the department’s statutory guidance Working Together to Improve School Attendance, local authorities are expected to use this information to identify attendance problems and to take appropriate action. Expectations include facilitating support for families where that is required, such as in the family courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wei (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but is it not the case that if a determined local authority objects to home-schooling, they could start a process of investigating a family under these powers and therefore, technically, the family would be under investigation and could be refused—and all parents could theoretically be prevented from doing so?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

No, and we will come to that in detail. The Section 47 provision, the child protection inquiries, would require evidence of significant harm to the child. It is not the case, as we have identified, that many parents who are home-educating would get anywhere near that sort of threshold. Nor would local authorities have any incentive to do that.

These provisions do not prohibit flexi-schooling arrangements. However, schools should agree to a flexi-schooling arrangement only in exceptional circumstances. We will update guidance to make this clear. In later groups we will be talking in more detail about the provisions around the consent process.

I turn to Amendment 286 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. This is a probing amendment which would remove an exemption on the parental duty to provide information for registers. To be clear, the proposed exemption relates to children whose education is provided under alternative provision arrangements when special educational provision other than in schools is in place or where arrangements have been made by the proprietor of the school that the child is attending. These children may be in scope of the children not in school registers, but the local authority will already hold this information, so there is no need for a duty to provide information that rests with the parents in those cases.

Amendment 233A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking, aims to push on what mandatory information local authority registers should contain. The only information required to be held on registers is that which is easily available to parents or obtainable by local authorities, and that is important for ascertaining the suitability of education and the safety of the child—such as the child’s name, their date of birth, address and details of education provided by the parent and others. We will talk on later groups about the way in which that information should be provided and the ease with which I hope it can be provided.

I turn now to Amendment 279, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nash, who made a strong case for the provisions in this legislation. His amendment aims to give local authorities the right to inspect the educational materials used by home educators and to view work that that child produces. Local authorities must consider a range of factors when assessing the suitability of a child’s education. One example of how they may conduct their inquiries into suitability is to request evidence of work samples. This position was confirmed in the Portsmouth judicial review case in 2021. If the local authority is not satisfied that the education is suitable based on the information received, it must usually serve a school attendance order, which requires the child to be enrolled at a school.

I turn to the Clause 31 stand part notice tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I hope the noble Lord was satisfied by my first speech on this group but, to summarise succinctly, we need an effective registration system so that local authorities can identify all children not in school and ensure that they are receiving suitable education and are safe. This is what Clause 31 will achieve.

The stand part notice tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, seeks to remove Clause 34 from the Bill. Clause 34 allows for statutory guidance to be provided to local authorities on how they should carry out their new duties in relation to the school attendance order process and children not in school registers. This guidance will provide local authorities with advice on how to exercise their new powers and responsibilities proportionately and consistently. For example, we would expect it to include further advice on how local authorities should request and conduct home visits.

As part of the implementation of the Bill, we will consult on the guidance to ensure that we hear from stakeholders that the measures will have an impact. It is necessary that the guidance is statutory to help ensure compliance with the advice within it. There will be considerable opportunity for further engagement on the details of that; the House will have the opportunity to consider it, because it will be subject to the affirmative resolution process.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made points on why all children need to be included on registers. To reiterate, we agree that home education is not in itself a safeguarding risk, but it can mean that children slip under the radar of the services that are there to protect them. Our consent measures are a proportionate solution which, as I have said, focuses on the small but important group of children for whom there are concerns about actual or likely significant harm. We will further discuss these issues later. The registers are about helping local authorities to discharge their existing duties to ensure that children are receiving a safe and suitable education.

Finally, with respect to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, about the child rights impact and the relationship with Wales, there is, to be clear, a child rights impact assessment produced by the Government for this piece of legislation, but Wales wanted to produce its own. That is the reason for the situation that the noble Baroness outlined.

For the reasons that I have outlined, and given the extensive discussions we have had as a forerunner for the further discussions that we will have, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments or stand part notices.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, if I might pick up the Minister on a couple of small issues, could she first confirm to the House that we will see a form of registration that will include every child? I thought that that was where we were going in Clause 4. She seemed to be talking about a register that includes only bits and pieces. In order for the local authority to know that it is not missing a child, can it use the provisions in Clause 4 and whatever comes out of that to connect to, as my noble friend said, what is going on in the benefits system and the NHS, in order to know that every child is in the system somewhere and to pick up cases where children are not being registered and seen?

Secondly, when it comes to flexi-schooling, is not the school absolutely in the best position to evaluate whether a child is receiving a proper education as a whole? A school has the power to discontinue flexi-schooling if that is not the case. Why do we want to insert a local authority official into a process when the school is in much the best place to take those decisions?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

If I have understood the noble Lord’s first point, it relates to whether the information-sharing provisions within this legislation will support the ability of local authorities to be able to track, so that they can ensure that children do not fall through the gaps. Of course that would be the case, but that in itself does not remove the requirement to ensure that, as he said, local authorities have information about where all children are receiving their education. The noble Lord is right that the intention of these clauses is that, obviously, if a child is receiving their education in school, it is clear and they are seen, but if they are not receiving their education in school for whatever reason, it is important that they are seen. The intention is that those are the children who should be included in the register of children not in school.

I take the noble Lord’s point about flexi-schooling, but it is possible to envisage, as I suggested, models of flexi-schooling where children are receiving part of their schooling at a school where they are registered and on the roll but are not receiving all of their schooling there. Therefore, the explanation of why they should be included in the register of children not in school is in order to have sight of the other part of their schooling. The other point that I made was that that would not necessarily require parents to provide additional information, because it may well be that the information about where that education provision is happening is known by the school. There is a range of different flexi-schooling arrangements and it is important that, in line with the helpful principle that the noble Lord set out at the beginning, we are able to see children and to see the education that they are receiving.

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this discussion. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for her support on the flexi-schooling amendments and the Minister for her response and her comprehensive statement earlier in the debate, which was helpful. The brief discussion that we have just had on flexi-schooling illustrates exactly the sort of point that is perhaps better discussed in one of those August meetings than now on the Floor of your Lordships’ House.

I will not detain noble Lords further. We have had a much fuller debate than perhaps I expected and I might have spoken at greater length at the start if I had known quite how large a debate we would have. I take this opportunity nevertheless to associate myself with the comments of my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Wei on the principles of this discussion.

School Libraries

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Index on Censorship survey which found that 53 per cent of school librarians reported being asked to remove books from their shelves.

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

My Lords, no authors, books or genres have been banned by the Government. Schools make their own choices about which specific books or other resources they use within the framework of the national curriculum. We trust the judgment of schools and teachers in their choice of books, and it is for individual schools to decide how best to provide and maintain a library service for their pupils and which books to stock.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that Answer. This is an issue essentially about intellectual freedom and opposing censorship. The School Library Association believes that it is a symptom of the more polarised society in which we live today, but their members are on the front line. My noble friend is absolutely right: of course it is for schools to decide what to have in their libraries, but a balanced choice of books surely enables children to develop relationships with people who are perhaps from different backgrounds and to understand those who have different beliefs or opinions from theirs. Almost all examples of schoolbooks being withdrawn from libraries followed complaints about LGBTQ content. In her dual roles as Education Minister and Equalities Minister, will my noble friend ask the DfE to begin collecting information on instances when school libraries have been put under pressure to censor their collections?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important point about the power of books and reading to enable children—in fact, all of us—not only to recognise the world in which we live but to have our horizons expanded. The Index on Censorship survey was an important but relatively small survey. I understand my noble friend’s point and recognise the important advice provided by the School Library Association, as well as the Government’s reading framework, on how to develop good-quality school libraries. However, it has been the decision of subsequent Governments not to collect the sort of data that my noble friend is asking for, partly because of burdens and partly to allow schools the autonomy to make decisions about how they stock their libraries. I strongly endorse my noble friend’s initial point about the benefits to children from reading and enjoying a broad range of books.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, in talking about this example of over 50% of books being withdrawn, I wonder whether the Minister is concerned that there might be a case of schools feeling intimidated and having the knee-jerk reaction to withdraw the books without thinking it through. I am surprised that there is no thought of giving any guidance to schools about how they might react.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

To clarify, I think the survey showed not that 50% of books were withdrawn but that in 50% of cases there was pressure to withdraw books—pressure that might have come to fruition. As I previously said, there is important guidance for schools from the School Library Association and through the Government’s reading framework to support them in developing their libraries and the other ways in which they make books available to children. Of course we support schools in making the right decision for the education and broadening of horizons of children and in making sure that all children’s lives and families are represented in the books they have the opportunity to read in their libraries.

[Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister share the view, consistent with the Government’s wider commitment to freedom of speech, that students should be trusted to engage with challenging material rather than being shielded from it through library censorship? What skills might teachers need to support children to disagree well through that challenging material?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. It is part of the role of reading to challenge us and broaden our horizons, as I have said, and it is part of the skill of teaching for teachers to support, through the way they teach about reading and books, the ability for students to be able to critically assess what they are reading. Those are really important parts of our schools and something we should be proud of and defend.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, although I am completely opposed to book banning, does the Minister agree that it is not censorship when parents raise safeguarding concerns about age-inappropriate books that tell children that, for example, there are 100 genders, or they are born in the wrong body, or books featuring double-mastectomy scars positively, or a book for three to seven year-olds entitled She’s My Dad? Conversely, will the Minister agree to read the new report by SEEN in Publishing and Sex Matters, Everyday Cancellation in Publishing, which features the censorship of gender-critical children’s writers such as the award-winning poet Rachel Rooney, who lost her career when her picture book My Body is Me! was smeared as transphobic?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness consistently argues for freedom of speech and the opportunity for people to engage with a whole range of different arguments and views. It is important that that is represented in our school libraries. On the point about whether or not books in libraries are age appropriate, the point about the school library is that it almost certainly includes books for the whole age range within that school, so it is difficult to argue that books may or may not be age appropriate. The noble Baroness has also identified the way in which censorship limits our ability, and children’s ability, to engage in arguments. That is something that, while working closely with parents on what is being provided in schools, we should aim to safeguard in our schools.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister said, this survey was based on a very small number—under 100—of our 22,500 schools, so she is right to be cautious about the conclusions one can draw. Can she say something about the timing of the Government’s publication of the new RSHE guidance? The bigger issue is that parents do not feel confident that they know what their children are being taught in this area. The consultation closed a year ago. In March, the Minister said that the Government were taking their time to get this right. I wonder how long parents will have to wait.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It will be important to ensure that the RSHE guidance, which of course the previous Government also took a very long time to consider, is appropriate and provides the right guidance for schools and parents. To be clear on this, schools should ensure that parents are able to view on request all curriculum materials used to teach RSHE. We are currently reviewing the RSHE statutory guidance. We are doing that in a way that ensures that we provide appropriate guidance for schools and consider the safeguarding of children and the appropriateness of their education at all stages. We will publish this guidance soon.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, with one in four children leaving primary school without the appropriate levels of literacy does the Minister agree that the most important thing we should be doing is giving children a love of books? Was Einstein not right when he said that if you want your child to be a genius, read to them? Would that not be good advice to give, particularly to fathers up and down this land? As a child, my demobbed father, who was a Desert Rat, took me on the back of his bicycle every Saturday morning to get two books from the public lending library. I have always been extremely grateful to him.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My dad did the same, and I have always been extremely grateful to him for that. The noble Lord is right that the first people who can encourage children to love books are their parents. That is why, through the family support and the Best Start for Life information that we provide to parents, ways of engaging at home with your children and books is a very important part of that. Then that love of books in the widest possible sense needs to be continued in school, and that is what this Government will support.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, in September 2020, the Government issued an order to English schools that:

“Schools should not under any circumstances use resources produced by organisations”


which have expressed a desire to end capitalism. As a result, students cannot easily study the history of the working class, trade unions and emergence of social rights and marginalised groups. When will the Minister withdraw that order?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

In citizenship, RSHE, maths, economics and history classes throughout this country, children are learning about all the things that my noble friend just mentioned, so whether or not this guidance was issued in the way in which he said it has not impacted on the breadth of learning that children are able to do.

Independent Schools: Tax Changes

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lexden and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper. I declare my own interest as chairman of governors of Brentwood School and president of the Boarding Schools’ Association.

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

My Lords, the Government published impact notes on the anticipated impact of the VAT and business rates changes affecting private schools. We monitor the impact on the sector and published details of pupil numbers in June 2025. A drop in numbers was expected following these changes and due to other factors, such as demographic decline. The full impact is expected to be realised over several years. Overall, private school pupil numbers remain higher than in 2020, then a record high.

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, documents released during legal action against the Government over the imposition of VAT midway through the academic year revealed that Ministers were warned by officials that theirs would be the most disruptive option for the implementation of this vindictive policy. Why did they callously ignore that advice? Ministers were also consistently warned by the sector that their assessment that there would be hardly any impact on independent schools was ludicrously optimistic. Now, the DfE’s own statistics show a drop of 11,000 in independent school numbers, four times that predicted by the Government, with boarding schools hit twice as hard. Is the Minister not ashamed of the Government’s appalling failure to listen to advice? Will she say sorry to the schools that have inevitably closed, to the people who have lost their jobs and, above all, to those students whose lives have been so cruelly disrupted?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

No, because I am proud that this Government are prioritising investment in the 93% of our children who attend state schools. On the point about the legal action that the noble Lord started his question with, that was a legal case won by the Government. It was found that the Government had not, as was asserted during the debates on this, acted in contradiction to human rights legislation.

On the final point about the numbers, the Government always said that they thought there would be an increase in the numbers of children potentially coming into state schools. That has been around 3,000, which is exactly in keeping with what the Government said at the time of introducing this legislation.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, the last Tory Government cut school budgets for 93% of pupils, let our schools run down and end up in a bad state of repair and refused to pay our teachers a proper wage to work in our schools, and yet they have the cheek to worry about a few people in private schools. Does the Minister agree?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, this Government worry about people in all schools. My noble friend is right that as a Government we have a job to put right some of the underinvestment of the last Conservative Government and to deliver our pledge to ensure that there are 6,500 new specialist teachers in secondary and special schools. That is what we are focused on, and that is what we will be investing in.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, one of the welcome moves from private schools over recent years has been the extension of their facilities, cultural and sporting, to state schools. Have the Government made any assessment of the outcome for the state sector if they feel financially unable to continue with that?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Of course, it is a good thing if private schools ensure that their facilities are on some occasions open to other people, not least because quite often—and certainly in the case of the town I live in—they occupy an enormously large part of the town. For schools with charitable status, it is in line with that that they demonstrate public benefit to retain it, and engaging in partnership activities with state-funded schools is one way in which they can do that. I hope that will continue for private schools.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, if we look at certain specialist sectors—that is, those which provide support for those with special educational needs—where the private sector has picked up a lot of the slack, and indeed the Government have paid for those places, are we finding out that people are now going and taking up the education, health and care plans, because you have to have money and understanding to get them quickly, as opposed to paying the fees directly themselves?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Where a pupil is eligible to have an education, health and care plan and that has allocated them a place in a private school, of course the impact of VAT on those schools will not be felt by those particular students. I think the noble Lord is also making a wider point about the need to ensure that we reform the special educational needs and disabilities system, which has forced too many parents to try to seek support elsewhere when that high-quality education and support for their children should have been available in our state schools. That is what the Government are determined to deliver.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, yesterday the oldest independent prep school in my home city of Leeds, Moorlands, announced its closure after 127 years. Twelve days ago, the renowned Queen Margaret’s School in York, which has been educating girls for 125 years, said that it will close on 5 July, three days before another Yorkshire landmark, Fulneck in Pudsey, which opened in 1753. All three cited increased running costs, with both Moorlands and Queen Margaret’s specifically referring to VAT, increased national insurance and the removal of business rates relief as reasons for closure. Like me, the Minister was educated in the state sector, but will she now apologise to governors, staff, parents and, above all, students in many fine schools across the country facing closure for the damage, disruption and distress being caused by this Government’s cruel policies?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

No, I will not, because once again I emphasise that this was a decision made by the Government in order to be able to invest in the over 93% of our children who are educated in state schools. On the point about school closures, yes, every closure of a school is sad; I can understand why people will be distressed if their school closes. I note, however, that it has always been the case that approximately 50 mainstream private schools close each year and that in fact 79 private schools opened in the last year, whereas on average that has been 75 per year in the last 10 years.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, will my noble friend say a little more about what is happening to school rolls? Is it not a fact that, because of the declining birth rate, rolls are falling generally and there are state schools closing because of falling rolls, as well as private schools?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is right about that. In fact, as of May 2024, 84% of primary schools and 76% of secondary schools had one unfilled place or more. I know that people have been concerned about whether there would be an impact on state schools and the ability of parents to gain their first choice. I am pleased, therefore, that the latest data shows that there has been no change in the percentage of children getting their first choice of school. The rate of children getting a place at one of their preferred primary schools is the second highest on record, and it is the highest since 2016 for those going into secondary school. At the same time, we have seen primary class sizes falling.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister has twice said that the Government are focused on investing in the 93% of children who go to state schools, but on 11 June the Prime Minister wrote on X:

“In the budget last year, my government made the tough but fair decision to apply VAT to private schools … Today, because of that choice, we have announced the largest investment in affordable housing in a generation”.


So is it housing or is it teachers? Maybe the Minister can clarify.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We have also, of course, announced in the most recent spending review a considerable increase in the funding available to our schools, a real-terms increase over the period of that spending review. On the point about delivering the 6,500 new teachers, we are already making progress on that, because we were willing to agree the 5.5% pay award for last year and the 4% pay award for this year, and because we were willing to drive forward teacher recruitment and retention, backed by an investment of around £700 million across schools and further education, including additional money for the initial teacher training financial incentives package and to streamline routes into teaching, such as the postgraduate apprenticeship route. That is why we have already seen 2,346 more full-time equivalent teachers in secondary and special schools. That is the difference that Labour decisions and Labour investment make.

Young People: Sporting Activities

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what is the timeline and budget to deliver the Prime Minister’s commitment made at his meeting with the Lionesses football team on 19 June to ensure young people have equal access to high-quality sport and extra-curricular activities.

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

My Lords, we are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity and supporting more children to access high-quality PE and sport. The new commitment, outlined by the Prime Minister as he wished the Lionesses good luck in their future tournament, is to create links between schools, local clubs and national governing bodies of sport to help deliver this. We are working with the school and sports sectors to design the partnerships. Further details, including funding, will be outlined in due course. Following a commercial process, we expect these partnerships to be in place from autumn 2026.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

The announcement by the Prime Minister that every child across the country will be given equal access to high-quality PE and sport, as the Government have indicated, will be welcomed across all sides of the House. However, in view of the fact that some 3.9 million children—an increase this year to nearly 40% of our schoolchildren—do not meet even the Chief Medical Officer’s basic recommendation for daily physical activity, let alone have access to high-quality PE, and given the Government’s 15% cut to DCMS’s administration budget by 2030 in the spending review and their plan to remove Sport England’s role as a statutory consultee in the planning process, leading to Sport England’s view that this will have a negative impact on physical activity with the loss of yet more school playing fields, does the Minister agree that a clearly costed, additional multi-billion pound budget will be essential to avoid falling massively short of the delivery of the Prime Minister’s laudable aspirations?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Of course it is important that there is a fully funded and costed programme, but when we talk about the facilities that are so important for enabling young people—in fact, all people—to engage in sport, I point the noble Lord to the increased capital investment in schools announced as part of the spending review, part of which can be used for maintaining their facilities, and DCMS’s announcement of an additional £400 million for community sports facilities. It is also important that where we have strong local clubs and national governing bodies—which are, to give them their due, providing lots of opportunities for young people—we also need something to bring those things together to ensure that, however much investment we make in the system, we maximise it for children to be able to benefit. That is the intention of the new partnership.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, when, a good few years ago now, all three major parties looked at sports policy, we all said that there should be a link with clubs. We also all said that there had to be a mix of options available to make sure people find something they will enjoy or stand a chance at. Will the Government commit that they will not create unique monocultures for sport but that people will have options? Some people will be hockey players, some people rugby players, many people will be soccer players, netball players, et cetera. Making sure that everybody has an option is very important, otherwise this will merely repeat some of the failures of the past.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point: activity is important, but not every young person will want to do the same sport. Although, as we can see with the Lionesses, football has arguably become much more popular for girls, the focus has quite often been on traditional sports. This has meant that girls, for example, have not necessarily found the things that they would like to do to keep active. I can absolutely commit that it will be part of the Government’s intention, both through this partnership and more broadly, to ensure that there is a range of opportunities to enable everybody to find sport and activity that they enjoy, and to keep healthy.

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister say what specific action the Government are taking to close the ethnicity gap with children in sport? Even within different ethnic groups, children access different types of sports. Addressing this gap will help with integration and community cohesion.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very important point. It partly relates to the extent to which we can provide a whole range of opportunities for people to engage in activity, and the way we use the new partnership arrangements locally to see what sort of provision is available and how we can link schools more easily to that local provision, which may well come from and be promoted by different parts of the community. This must be an approach that ensures everybody has the opportunity to benefit from the obvious advantages that come from being more active and taking part in sport.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

My Lords, for many years now, schoolchildren have been losing access to swimming pools; pool time has been in decline. That is clearly not the fault of the present Government. However, we are where we are. We need to stop that decline and reverse it so that schoolchildren increasingly have access to pools, not just to create the champions of the future but to save lives, because swimming is the one sport that might make a difference between living and dying.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. That is why it is a key part of the national curriculum that children should be able to swim before the age of 11. It is why the ongoing commitment to the primary PE and sport premium, which is funded for the next academic year at £320 million, can also be—and has been—used to ensure that there is access to swimming facilities and water safety in the way my noble friend outlined. We also need to ensure that local authorities recognise the importance of swimming pools so that everybody can benefit.

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s investment of £100 million to upgrade sports facilities and improve access to sport for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. However, noble Lords will be aware of other significant disparities that persist across demographics relating to participation in sport and extracurricular activities. These include disparities relating to race and gender, as well as stubborn socioeconomic and regional inequalities. How do the Government plan to level the playing field regionally to enable the most underrepresented groups to participate more fully in sport?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate is right to recognise the importance, and the possibility, of engaging children with special educational needs and disabilities in sport and PE. That is why the Government have approved a grant of £300,000 a year for up to three years to increase and improve opportunities for pupils with SEND by identifying where there is already good practice and sharing it more widely. As I suggested, that needs to be an important element of what happens with the new partnerships to ensure that links are made between partners so that everybody, regardless of their background, can get the benefits that can come from sport and activity.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, according to modelling by the Royal Society for Public Health that came out yesterday, rates of overweight or obese children will rise in 90% of local authority areas in the next decade. Separately, approximately one in five children and young people aged eight to 25 currently experiences a probable mental health disorder. It is a proven fact that sport, physical exercise and good diet help with these issues, so does the Minister agree that the various cross-party amendments to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill relating to nutritious food and increased physical education should be accepted?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Given that we are about to go on to day eight in Committee on the Bill, I look forward to that discussion and debate. The noble Earl is, of course, right to identify the benefits of sport and activity to ensure young people remain healthy, both physically and mentally. That is why, without waiting for the Bill and the amendments he outlined, we are already making progress to support sports activity in schools. More broadly, through the work of my colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, we are ensuring that grass-roots sports facilities are provided as well. I look forward to the debate that the noble Earl mentioned.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, I was fortunate enough to sit on the National Plan for Sport and Recreation Committee with the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Addington, and a number of other noble Lords. We learned of the remarkable lack of access to secondary school playing fields after school hours, particularly for local school clubs. It seemed to us that that was merely a lack of support for man hours and staffing. What are the Government doing to increase access to the few remaining secondary school playing fields?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Let us be clear: it is not true that there are only a few remaining secondary school playing fields. However, the noble Earl makes a really important point that, where a facility is provided for a school to use during the school day, we should work harder to ensure it is available for communities to use. This is alongside the additional investment the Government are putting in anyway to ensure that there are grass-roots and community sports facilities.