Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Bishop of Chelmsford Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 502YF in my name and those of my noble friends Lady Barran and Lord Bailey, to require an assessment under the Children Act when a child is permanently excluded. The reason for this amendment is that, in my experience, when a pupil is permanently excluded without an adequate handover or adequate liaison between the school and the local authority, there is a risk that the pupil disappears into a black hole. I have sat on, thankfully, few PEx panels—we really do not like excluding pupils in my trust. I have always hated having to exclude a pupil, not just in its own right but because they just disappear from view.

In my view, schools should continue to have some involvement, if not responsibility, for PEx students to ensure that they receive adequate provision. As things stand, they have no say in where children go when PExed, often because the local authority has an arrangement or a contract with one or two AP providers such that there are no other options—and, of course, in some areas, the AP providers have no capacity. As I have said, that is why we desperately need more such provision. I would like to see schools with greater involvement in this. I understand that, in Milton Keynes, there is a model where about a dozen secondary schools—11, I think—co-operate well with the local authority on this. That could perhaps be a model for the future.

I also support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran in this group. Poor behaviour by a few students has a dramatic effect on the effectiveness of a school. Teachers spend a disproportionate amount of time dealing with a few pupils who exhibit very poor behaviour, and they are increasingly acting as social workers. We must protect the other pupils in the school, and we must support our teachers. There comes a time when the disruption this causes to other pupils and to teachers means it is necessary to exclude certain pupils.

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 464 knowing that, had my right reverend friend the Bishop of Lincoln been in his place, he would very much have wanted to contribute to the debate. If passed, this amendment would introduce a duty on schools to record and report any incidents of racism or faith-based bullying on school premises. It would also help diocesan boards of education in collating and monitoring such cases and better assisting those church schools which might benefit from support.

In preparing for this speech, I spoke to our own director of education in Chelmsford diocese, whose team oversees 139 church schools. She told me that this proposed amendment had the potential to help the board of education strengthen anti-bullying and inclusive practices in partnership with schools.

Every child deserves to feel safe at school, yet we know that racist and faith-based bullying is a significant driver behind school exclusions. A report published last year by The Difference and the IPPR revealed that black Caribbean children are 1.5 times more likely to find themselves permanently excluded from schools than the national population. Irish Traveller children are three times more likely, and Romani, or Gypsy, and Roma children are four times more likely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 490 in my name; I thank my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for adding her name to it.

Special educational needs and disability education are not working in the UK right now. This is no fault of the excellent SENCOs up and down the country. It is no fault of teachers, who try to teach all of the children in front of them in their classes. It is certainly no fault of parents, who try to find their way through often labyrinthine, circumlocutory, beyond-bureaucratic practices in order to get the best for their children. It is obviously no fault of children with special educational needs or disabilities, who just want an inclusive educational experience to give of their talent.

Amendment 490 simply asks, in a probing manner, for a royal commission to look at the attainment gap for children with special educational needs and disabilities. I do not much mind if it is a royal commission; the weight of the issue merits a royal commission but, were the Government to undertake swiftly a task and finish group, so much the better. The attainment gap needs to be considered at all levels of the school experience, and right through all examinations from when they begin. Crucially, it is about putting a plan in place so that, in short order, we no longer talk about an education attainment gap, because there is no reason why there should be one just by dint of a young person having a special educational need or a disability.

That is all this amendment is asking for: simple, clear and effective measurement of the current situation and disability educational attainment gap. It is important to measure the gap. However, the aim—the mission—must be to close it. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

My Lords, sadly, my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester is unable to be here to speak to Amendment 482 in her name.

This amendment, which I support and has already been touched on by a couple of noble Lords in our debate on the previous group, would compel the Secretary of State to

“commission a report on the educational attainment of school age children with a parent who is in prison”,

and to

“make recommendations for how the educational attainment of those children can be improved”.

I will not presuppose what the recommendations of this report would be. However, through its work in supporting more than 1,450 children with a parent in prison, the charity Children Heard and Seen has shown that, through simple, targeted and tailored emotional support, you can drastically change outcomes for children with a parent in prison.

Having a parent in prison is among the most significant adverse childhood experiences, severely impacting children’s mental health and well-being. Children with an imprisoned parent are 25% more likely to suffer from mental health issues, including depression, anxiety, insomnia and eating disorders. Negative school experiences such as bullying, persistent truancy and academic underachievement are also common among this group. It is estimated that there are almost 200,000 children with a parent in prison in England and Wales, yet we still do not know who or where these children are. This means that they are not being brought to the attention of schools.

Due to the lack of awareness of the issue of parental imprisonment throughout schools, support for children with a parent in prison varies hugely from school to school. There is no uniform approach and many children are left without the appropriate support that they need. Amendment 482 would be a strong step in the right direction in increasing awareness and understanding of the harms within schools of parental imprisonment, ensuring that pupils and students who are affected by parental imprisonment are supported through an inclusive and non-judgmental approach. Children with a parent in prison should be given the same chance in life as any other child. The amendment would help enable them to mitigate the impacts of their parents’ imprisonment, overcoming educational barriers and allowing them to fulfil their academic potential.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I strongly support the amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate. We know for a fact that, as we just heard, children who have a parent in prison are at significantly greater risk of suffering mental health difficulties than children who do not, including low self-esteem, depression, disturbed sleeping patterns and symptoms of post-traumatic stress.

The Ministry of Justice’s research highlights a strong correlation between parental offending and child offending. Family members often explain that parental imprisonment for children is akin to a type of bereavement from losing a parent who suddenly leaves the home and never returns. It is not exactly the same, however. I remember visiting Holloway prison in the early 1990s, when it was a women’s prison, and it happened to be visiting hour for the children seeing their mothers for the first time possibly in many months because of the geographical distances involved in travel. It was wonderful to see the excitement and joy that the children had in greeting their mothers after perhaps a long time, but that turned to despair and anguish when visiting time was over. Sometimes, and I saw it, the children had to be physically separated from their mothers by prison officers. It was a horrific sight and it still haunts me.

Parental imprisonment is hugely under-researched. In most cases, schools, which have a crucial role to play here, are not even aware that a pupil’s parent has been imprisoned. These children are the forgotten and invisible victims of crime and they are totally innocent. Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration in all decisions and actions that affect children. This means that the best interests of the child should be taken into account at every stage of a parent’s journey through the criminal justice system, as these decisions affect these children directly.

The Labour Government, on page 71 of their manifesto for the last general election, commendably committed to identifying and supporting children with a parent in prison. What has happened? Nothing yet, as far as I can see. There is still no statutory mechanism for identifying and supporting children with a parent in prison, so can the Minister say when this manifesto commitment will be fulfilled?

I can answer my own question, because the right reverend Prelate’s wonderful amendment provides a golden opportunity to fulfil that commitment right now. It would not only raise awareness and understanding of parental imprisonment within schools but also provide clear guidance on how to mitigate the impacts of a parent going to prison so that children can fulfil their academic potential. Will the Government grasp this opportunity to do something and accept the amendment this evening?

Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2025

Lord Bishop of Chelmsford Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Grand Committee

I finish by quoting someone with lived experience of living on benefits who is part of the Changing Realities project. Gemma is disabled and a single mother of three children, as well as a carer for her autistic nephew. She writes of sleeping in the same bed as her children to keep warm during the cold spell and of the black mould that is starting to appear: “For families like mine, living on a low income, we have run out of corners to cut. I cannot wait for warmer days. I’m at the bottom of a dark hole and there is no way of getting out. I sometimes find it difficult to imagine how my situation can get better, but it really has to because life should not be this hard”. My Government have a responsibility to give parents like Gemma some hope that their situation will get better and that their lives will not continue to be that hard. As Gemma herself advises, that has to mean bold and real change by investing in social security.

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

My Lords, it is very good to be here today and I am glad to be able to contribute on this important subject. As we consider a proposed uprating of 1.7%, as compared with 6.8% last year and 10.1% the year before, I am mindful of the different backdrop to this year’s decision. We may no longer be in a period of soaring inflation, but costs remain high in just about every area of life. The discrepancy between the inflation rate from September 2024, by which most means-tested benefits will be uprated, and the current rate of 3% will be felt particularly by those who have not benefited from wage growth this year. This is a timely moment to explore social security as the Government set out their wider agenda in this area.

The manifesto commitments to review universal credit as a means of supporting people into work and addressing poverty and to produce a child poverty strategy could give us a basis on which to improve the lives of millions of people in our country. Indeed, bold action is required in both these areas and, like other noble Lords, I await the outcome of these reviews with keen interest.

As the Church of England’s lead bishop for housing, I see the consequences of not aligning housing support with housing costs, with half of private renters on housing benefit experiencing poverty. I suggest that local housing allowance ought to be linked to private rents as a matter of course, especially taking into account research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which shows that 81% of low-income private renters in receipt of housing benefit are going without essentials such as food, heating and warm clothing. I very much hope that the Government will consider the adequacy of social security in their review of universal credit. For the first time since its introduction, we have an opportunity to explore how well the system works and to consider carefully the impact of sanctions, deductions and the five-week wait on the lives and incomes of people who rely on social security simply to make ends meet.

I welcome the introduction of the fair repayment rate, which is an important step towards ensuring that deductions do not cause people to fall below the threshold of what we would consider an acceptable standard of living. Despite this, I still worry about the impact of the deductions. I draw the Committee’s attention to the Private Member’s Bill brought forward by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, which would equalise the standard allowance of universal credit for care leavers under the age of 25. Care leavers have shared their experiences of deductions from their universal credit, which, when taken from an already lower rate, can leave them struggling to afford essentials. This cohort of young adults cannot necessarily rely on the same level of family support as many of their peers.

Even though we have resumed uprating benefits in line with inflation, their real-terms value is low by historic standards. The major issue is that benefits are not calculated in relation to the day-to-day costs people face. One solution could be for benefits to rise in line with wages rather than prices, as advocated by, among others, the Resolution Foundation. Another could be to introduce a minimum floor in universal credit to ensure that people have the money they need to afford the essentials, as advocated by the Trussell Trust and the JRF. It seems eminently sensible to calculate benefits in relation to the day-to-day costs people face. We have a precedent for this, with pensions credit calculated by comparing a person’s income with the amount the Government think necessary to live on. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s views on whether means-tested benefits could be subject to a similar assessment.

As I close, I reflect on the impact of poverty on our places of worship and wider communities. There will always be a place for voluntary provision, particularly when it comes to support that requires a more human and relational touch; but we must be attentive to the reasons why there is so much demand for food banks, warm spaces, breakfast clubs and the many other activities hosted in church buildings and by other faith groups and charities. We see first hand what the statistics bear out: poverty is deepening in our country. Investment in social security, alongside reforms in other areas, is essential in order to turn the tide on poverty.

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of interests as a trustee of pension schemes, and I thank the Minister for her clear explanation of the two statutory instruments before us.

I want to raise an issue concerning the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2025. Given the pace at which DB pension schemes are transitioning to buyout contracts, this raises the issue of the extent to which, and how, a buyout contract contains liability for a guaranteed minimum pension, and the contractual provision of a promise to provide at least that pension from the age of 60 or 65. Is this a liability that all buyout contract providers must take on when they accept the original transfer from the defined benefit pension scheme? Secondly, does the DWP intend to update its guidance on the guaranteed minimum pension, considering the extent of buyout activity now taking place among DB pension schemes?