(4 days, 12 hours ago)
Lords Chamber
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
On the last point that my noble friend made, it is precisely because of the importance of accountability that we will work with Ofsted to ensure that the measurement of enduring relationships and the development of enduring relationships are at the heart of the inspection process.
My noble friend also makes a very important point that, particularly for those young people who are in care but have already lost their most important relationships, it is not enough to simply say that is there nothing we can do to help them rebuild those. That is the reason for the announcement in the Statement about what is described as the
“national sprint to roll out family finding services”.
Those services do exactly what my noble friend has said: they sit down with young people, talk to them about who is now or was an important link and support in their lives, and then help them to remake those links to those people, who will support them while they are young but, as my noble friend says, will also be the people alongside them as they go into adulthood.
My Lords, from these Benches, I also warmly welcome what is in the strategy. Enabling children in care to sustain or make long-lasting relationships is absolutely crucial. When it comes to the lifelong relationship ceremonies, we on these Benches are certainly very interested in looking at what can be done to effect that. My question has come out of the work I did on my Private Member’s Bill for care leavers in the last Session. So many care leavers need to move from one local authority area to another, perhaps to maintain those relationships or to rebuild a relationship with a sibling, yet what traditionally happens is that the authority they have left washes its hands of them and the authority they land in considers it has no responsibility because they were never in care in that authority. What will the Government do to ensure that, where young people move from one authority area to another after they have just left care, they do not fall through the net any longer?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate makes a very important point. It is, of course, the objective of the Staying Close programme to enable young people, once they have left care, particularly if they were in residential care, to be able to continue to receive support. I will certainly go back and talk to my honourable friend the Minister for Children and Families about this point. I think that that is partly covered in the requirement for all authorities to have a support package for those who have left care, but the point about how we maintain the relationships that are at the heart of this strategy is a really important one that I will take up with him.
(1 week, 4 days ago)
Lords Chamber
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Given the number of questions and the debate there is about this issue, I do not think there is anybody who does not think that some difficult and contested issues have had to be dealt with along the way. But the publication of the code, and the work of the EHRC to deliver it, provide, as the commission has said it attempted to, some more exemplification about how providers can abide by the law. Most importantly, it can ensure that everybody’s rights under the Equality Act, including their dignity and their ability to access services, are upheld.
My Lords, alongside other faith leaders, I am increasingly coming across trans people—men and women, often young and quite fragile—who are increasingly frightened. They are frightened about participating in public life and about being challenged. Some are even frightened about going to the doctor. What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the mental health of trans people, and how will they support them with these changes?
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords Chamber
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The £4 billion is additional funding over the next three years. The £6 billion that the OBR identified was based on the premise of an unreformed system. That the system is being reformed means that, by the time we get to 2028-29 and 2029-30, we will be operating in a very different system. As part of the local government settlement, we have also begun the process of writing off and taking over responsibility for the money that local authorities have built up from overspending on special educational needs in recent years. Those two things are separate.
My Lords, I declare an interest in that my diocese has more than 190 Church schools and we educate around 60,000 children, in the total roll across them. The Church of England has already officially welcomed the White Paper and these Benches echo that this evening.
In Manchester, we have been looking at those points of transition—the transition from preschool into primary and from primary into secondary. In the past five or six years, the Bolton metropolitan area has had a project called Children Changing Places, because we recognise that, in those points of transition, children’s academic, social and spiritual development can go backwards, so we have been investing money into those points of transition. I note that both the White Paper and the Minister, in her replies this evening, referred to those points of transition. Might I tempt her to say a little more about how children can be enabled to manage those transitions without dropping back in their various levels of attainment?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate makes a very important point. As an example, we are working on how we can ensure that children are better prepared when they start school with an ambitious target to improve that, and investment in Best Start in Life and childcare to enable it.
Another key transition is from primary to secondary. Too often, key stage 3—the first three years in secondary—is not spent as effectively as it could be. Developing a new programme around the best practice for key stage 3 and really focusing on that will be part of the work of the RISE teams.
Another area where transition is often raised is in relation to SEND and children going from mainstream schools into colleges. We will make better provision for that and expect schools, at an earlier stage, to provide the information that colleges need to help children with special educational needs to thrive.
(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords Chamber
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
This year, as has been the case since 2010, we have maintained the value of the funding for the music and dance scheme, and we have provided an additional £4 million to support parents having to pay for the impacts of VAT on private schools. We have done what was necessary to maintain it this year and, as I said previously, we recognise the significance of this scheme and we will do all we can to support it in the future.
My Lords, I declare my interest: I might myself have the voice of a frog but I have Chetham’s School of Music, which provides wonderful choristers for my cathedral. Does the Minister agree with me that there seems to be an anomaly? Last week the Government were able to announce significant money over four or five years for the built heritage of this country. However, when it comes to an equally important part of our heritage, our music and drama heritage, we are told that the most we can expect is another year and then, perhaps, later on, something longer. Why can we not have a similar length of settlement for the music and dance schools now as we had for the built heritage last week?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is not right to say that the only support provided to music and the arts is through the music and dance scheme. That deals with a particular issue about how we ensure that, whatever your income, if you are highly talented, you can learn at the very best private schools, including Chetham’s. Alongside that, this Government have taken action on the national curriculum to support the place of arts and music. We are investing in a national centre for arts and music as well. So there is a long-term commitment from this Government to arts and music—somewhat in contrast to the last Government, I have to say.
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Lords Chamber
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I think the noble and learned Lord knows that the full draft updated code was received by the Government from the EHRC on 4 September. Officials started work immediately after that. Having made clear to the EHRC that information about the impacts on businesses and public functions would be important, both in the previous iteration of the code and the one delivered on 4 September, the formal ask for that was made on 9 October.
I have already outlined in my previous answer why it is important and necessary for the conditions around impact assessments laid by, and presumably followed by, the previous Government to be carried out appropriately. Given the significance of this code, it is right that the Government take the time to get it right, rather than satisfy those who are calling for it to be laid in an untimely fashion.
Like many, I am grateful that the interim advice that was issued and caused such widespread alarm was withdrawn, albeit belatedly. As the Minister has just said, we need to get this right rather than done quick. With that in mind, can the Minister assure us that the forthcoming appointment of the new chair of the EHRC will be taken as an opportunity to reset an organisation that has, of late, lost the confidence of many?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The EHRC continues to do important work, but I take the point that the right reverend Prelate makes. The new chair of the EHRC, who will start in her role at the end of this month, has an important opportunity to build on that work and to ensure, as I know she will, that she builds trust among a wide range of stakeholders and supports the Government—and, in fact, all of us—in ensuring that the provisions of the Equality Act, in the breadth of their application, are implemented as effectively as possible, because we all benefit from that.
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords Chamber
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I hope that is the approach that I have tried to take. With that pragmatic approach, I reiterate that I expect student unions to behave in a way that safeguards and promotes speech and events with which they perhaps as a majority do not agree—that is an important part of the experience of being a student—but to impose on them the same level of burden imposed on the institution itself was unreasonable. That is why we took the decision that we did.
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to ask questions on this Statement, particularly as the noble Lord, Lord Mann, who is sitting behind me, raised issues of anti-Semitism. In Manchester, where I live among a very large Jewish community, it is an ongoing issue that we are always very sensitive to.
We have heard a lot about free speech, which, unsurprisingly, I am in favour of, and of difficult conversations from the noble Lord, which, again, I am in favour of. But sometimes the language shades over into what can only be called mob intimidation. It is about how we make that distinction between a difficult conversation and people being intimidated by loud, vociferous, angry behaviour that seeks deliberately to make them uncomfortable.
We had a really good session in this House a couple of years ago, looking at an amendment about the rights of protesters near abortion clinics and the rights of women to access those services. I worked with Peers from all sides of the House and we came up with something that commanded massive support in the House and that I hope is proving workable. Can we just get that balance between people’s right to protest—and to speak sometimes a little loudly and emotionally—and not moving over to the point where people intimidate others and prevent them from feeling that can pursue their educational studies?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate exactly outlines the balance that we need to strike. It is wholly reasonable that students engage in protest. In fact, I engaged in a fair amount of protest with my noble friend Lord Mann during my time as a student. However, it is wholly inappropriate, as the right reverend Prelate says, if that then prevents those with whom you disagree from operating. Where serious thought has been given to this, higher education institutions have managed to find that balance between the right to protest and the requirement that views with which you disagree should not, essentially, be cancelled from campuses.
If we can work on that, and if we can also ensure that we develop that culture that we were talking about earlier, and that ability to recognise that disagreement is an important part of the experience of being in higher education, then we will have made important progress.