Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Mohammed of Tinsley(4 days, 18 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion H, I shall also speak to Motions H1, J, L, L1 and M. In this group, we are debating amendments relating to school uniforms, published admission numbers and allergies. For each, I will set out the clear rationale as to why the Government cannot accept these amendments.
I turn first to Motions H and J, relating to Amendments 41 and 42, and Motion H1, relating to an amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley. The amendment in lieu, Amendment 41B, seeks to require a review of the effectiveness of the limit on branded items of school uniform, with particular reference to introducing a monetary cap. I thank the noble Lord again for raising the important issue of uniform costs. We will, of course, monitor the effectiveness of the limit as we implement it.
However, our manifesto commitment is clear: to reduce the cost of uniforms by limiting the number of branded items that schools can require. This approach is overwhelmingly backed by parents, with the Children’s Society finding that 78% agree with such a limit. We believe that a cost cap would not create the same level of parental savings as a numeric limit. It is complex and burdensome for government and schools, and it risks appearing protective, while failing to constrain actual costs. It creates a financial target and could encourage schools to increase the number or price of their branded items. It risks strengthening supply and monopolies, reducing parental freedom and increasing costs. A numeric limit opens the market, giving parents greater choice and affordability.
A cost cap would entail unnecessary regulatory complexity and assumptions about retail pricing for size variations, promotions and parents’ purchasing of spare or replacement items. Enforcement would create significant burdens for schools, forcing annual reviews of uniform policies and prices, and drawing them into disputes between parents and retailers about prices and compliance. A numeric limit is simple, transparent and easily enforceable, and statutory guidance can make it clear that high-cost items should be avoided.
I turn to Motion L, relating to Amendment 102, and Motion L1, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which insists on this amendment. The amendment seeks to limit the circumstances in which the adjudicator can specify a lower published admission number, or PAN, following an upheld objection. We have committed to update the statutory School Admissions Code to ensure that school quality and parental choice are paramount in any decision on a PAN. We have set out more detail on our planned approach in a paper deposited in the House of Lords Library yesterday, including plans for new statutory principles that will ensure that the availability of high-quality school places is central to decision-making, and that requiring high-performing schools to reduce places should be a last resort.
We already expect schools and local authorities to co-operate to ensure that admission numbers give parents a choice of high-quality local school places close to home. However, this amendment would impose inappropriate restrictions on the scope of the adjudicator’s powers to deal with those instances where this does not happen. An individual school’s decisions can impact school quality and choice across an area, especially at a time of declining pupil numbers. This can impact both urban and rural communities. This measure will ensure that, as a last resort, an independent decision can be taken, with choice and quality for all children at its centre.
I turn finally to Motion M, relating to Amendment 105, which was tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, and seeks to introduce mandatory allergy safety provisions for all schools. The Government agree with Members campaigning for improved allergy safety in schools. I am therefore pleased to confirm that we have tabled our own amendment in lieu to place allergy safety on a statutory footing. It is intended to enshrine Benedict’s law in primary legislation, securing robust allergy safety measures.
I pay particular tribute to the tireless efforts of Helen Blythe, in memory of her son Benedict, and the members of the National Allergy Strategy Group. Helen, her husband Peter and their daughter Etta are here today in the Chamber. Parents should be able to send their children to school in the knowledge that they will be safe there, regardless of any medical condition or allergy.
Our amendment in lieu requires schools to have and regularly review allergy safety policies, and to publicise and publish them on their websites. In doing so, schools must have regard to statutory guidance, which has been co-produced with many expert stakeholders. Our amendment in lieu also creates regulation-making powers permitting the Secretary of State to place specific duties relating to allergy safety, including the content of policies, stocking adrenaline devices and securing allergy awareness training, and to record and report incidents.
This amendment applies to all schools in England. It provides for the same requirements to be placed on independent and non-maintained special schools. The noble Baroness’s amendment set clear timescales for its implementation; I reiterate our commitment that our new statutory guidance will be implemented from September 2026. We further commit to commencing the duties contained within these clauses as soon as possible, and to introducing the regulations as soon as possible, noting that we have undertaken to give schools at least a term’s notice of any new duty.
We believe that this will deliver the key protections for children with allergies and the flexibility for our requirements to evolve as clinical advice changes. I beg to move.
Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H)
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley
Moved by
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 41B in lieu—
41B: Clause 29, page 50, line 21, at end insert—
“551ZB School uniforms: review of limits on branded items
(1) The Secretary of State must review the effectiveness of measures intended to limit the cost to parents of branded items of school uniform required by the appropriate authority of a relevant school in England for use during a school year.
(2) A review under subsection (1) must, in particular, consider—
(a) whether a monetary cap on the total cost of branded items of school uniform could provide a greater reduction in costs for parents in comparison to an item-based cap,
(b) the impact such a monetary cap would have on pupils at—
(i) primary schools, and
(ii) secondary schools,
(c) the impact a monetary cap would have on schools and their uniform policies, and
(d) what further measures could be effective at reducing the cost of school uniform.
(3) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the coming into force of section 551ZA, lay before Parliament a report setting out the findings of the review under subsection (1).””
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone for their contributions. I start by addressing the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed. To be clear, and as I said in my opening speech, we will of course monitor the effectiveness of the limit as we implement it. One of the concerns I and the Government have is that the cost cap effectively creates a target price, incentivising price rises for any school currently below the cap. Many schools could in fact brand more items, reducing savings for parents, and it would be more complex for parents and place unnecessary burdens on them. So I hope that the noble Lord will reconsider his position. I think a numeric limit is clearer and simpler, it will deliver savings more quickly—which is what the Children’s Society survey says is overwhelmingly backed by parents—and it is of course a commitment in our manifesto.
Lords Amendment 102 seeks to limit the circumstances in which the adjudicator can set a lower published admission number. We want a system that ensures that school admission numbers give all parents a choice of high-quality local school places. As the noble Baroness mentioned, we have committed to updating the statutory School Admissions Code to ensure that school standards and parental choice are central to any decision on PAN.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, acknowledged, we have been developing proposed changes to the code and associated regulations, considering stakeholders’ views and the important points raised by Members as the Bill has progressed. I note what the noble Baroness says about the timing of the publication, but our proposed framework, which was deposited in the House Library yesterday, contains at its heart new statutory principles to help ensure that requiring high-performing schools to reduce places will always be a last resort. We will conduct a full public consultation on the proposed changes, and the updated code and regulations must be laid before Parliament.
Finally, I turn to allergy safety. I am grateful for the contributions of noble Lords who have spoken in support of the Government’s amendment. I will repay the compliment by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for her work on this. I will certainly pass her gratitude on to my noble friend Lady Smith and my honourable friend in the other place, and her acknowledgement of their work. I pay tribute to the people who have really made the difference: the campaigners who have worked so hard to ensure that this is implemented. Given the critical importance of allergy safety, we will seek to continue to work collaboratively, and we will continue to do so as we develop the regulations and prepare to implement the new duties.
To close, I urge noble Lords to support the Government’s amendment on allergies in schools, to support Motions H, J, L, and M, and to resist Motions H1 and L1.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, and particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for her support. I am still not convinced; the Government need to have another option at the end of it. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House.
Middle East
Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Mohammed of Tinsley(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his comments and agree completely with him. When the Foreign Secretary presented her Statement in the other place, I think she said that we must redouble our efforts in focusing on and supporting a two-state solution. I acknowledge the work that my noble friend undertakes to support the Palestinian Authority. We made that support clear, which is why we took the decision to recognise Palestine, because we need to ensure that that is the focus.
The Foreign Secretary responded to a number of things. When I last visited the West Bank, I saw the groups of thugs—I do not call them settlers—who sit on top of the hills above Palestinian villages. They do not just harass people: the most horrendous case that we saw this week was a family returning from the shops, and young children being shot. We have made representations and are asking for clear investigations into this. The rule of law applies to Palestinian people too. They deserve the opportunity to be able to live and work in peace.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, particularly around how conflicts abroad should not result in hate on our streets. I fully back his call for a cross-party meeting of senior Members of your Lordships’ House to look at how we can work together to ensure that antisemitism and Islamophobia are not allowed to spread, given what is happening in the Middle East.
I also wholeheartedly back the Minister’s comments about what is happening in the West Bank. Those incidents, such as individuals being attacked, are heartbreaking. Often it is not just the young but the elderly who are brutalised and beaten up for no reason other than the fact that they live there. Your Lordships’ House should be very clear that the Government of the United Kingdom will take strong action against anyone who is involved in that, including sanctioning further individuals.
One point that has not been mentioned so far is the Houthis in Yemen. At the moment they have stayed out of this conflict, but what assessment have His Majesty’s Government made about the impact, particularly on trade, if the Houthis were to enter this conflict? There is huge attention on fuel at the moment, and the fact that energy prices are both affecting us domestically and, as I mentioned in the earlier debate, affecting energy-intensive industries such as steel, in places such as south Wales, south Yorkshire and Scunthorpe.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
On the comments about the rise of antisemitism and Islamophobia, we all have a duty, across political parties, to ensure that we focus on greater community cohesion. That is fundamental, because there is no doubt that there has been an increase in both Islamophobia and antisemitism, and we need to address that. My noble friends across Whitehall have been working on how we can work across government to deal with that issue. The idea of discussions is something that the usual channels could look at; it is certainly worthy of consideration.
The noble Lord discussed Yemen. We have seen a huge humanitarian crisis there as a consequence of the actions of the parties, particularly the Houthis. We constantly review the situation and work with our allies: we have had discussions with Saudi Arabia in particular, but our focus at the moment is on the whole region. This conflict is destabilising the whole region; we need to ensure that we give support to our allies so that they can defend their position.
Middle East
Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Mohammed of Tinsley(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate makes an important point: that our actions should not be only in international diplomacy but should look at our communities at home and how we bring them together. It is also important that we ensure that all our communities are safe, and that is why we are taking every possible action, particularly against malign states who intend to intervene. He is right that we should focus on community building and ensuring that the terrible conditions do not provoke people into taking the kind of horrendous actions we have seen in the past.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement from the Minister and urge the Government not to follow the drumbeat of escalation and to learn the lessons of Iraq in 2003. On the understandably delayed UN conference initiated by the French and the Saudis, and now that we have this window of opportunity with the ceasefire between Israel and Iran, what actions are the Government taking to bring forward as soon as possible the date for that meeting? It is urgently needed; we cannot take our eye off what is happening in Palestine, particularly in Gaza.
Israel and Iran
Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Mohammed of Tinsley(9 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think the Government fully understand that, which is why the Prime Minister has ensured that we are moving towards protecting those assets. The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Before the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—who is not in his place—asks me a question, of course we are urging all parties to comply with international humanitarian law. That is quite clear, too.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, what is the Government’s thinking on the day after? We have observed this question a lot of times in the last 18 months in terms of the conflict in Gaza. Has any thought been given to the lessons learned, particularly from Iraq, about the day after? If the regime falls, what are the Government’s thoughts and plans for bringing stability to that region, given that the oil that travels through the Strait of Hormuz will have a huge impact not just in that region but all across the world, and particularly for ourselves here in the United Kingdom?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
As I said in my answer to the question from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, I will not speculate on the consequences of, or reasons for, these. Our objective is to stop Iran having a nuclear capability. We are absolutely working with all our allies to achieve that. The means to do that, as President Trump has made clear, is through a deal. There cannot be a long-term military answer to that question.
To come back to the point made earlier, we should not take our eyes off the situation in the Occupied Territories and Gaza. It is very sad that the consequences of these actions resulted in the postponement of the two-state solution conference, which was going to bring Saudi Arabia and others together to look at the situation of the day after: “What next?” We need to ensure that the international community is absolutely focused on that, and we will be supporting and putting all efforts into a reconvened conference to ensure that that is the focus for the next steps.
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Mohammed of Tinsley(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
We have covered the urgent humanitarian situation, but as the noble Baroness and the House know, this Government—and the previous Government—are committed to a two-state solution, and support for that is unwavering. We are committed to recognising a Palestinian state at a time that has most impact in achieving this reality and is most conducive to long-term prospects for peace. We are clear that this does not need to be at the end of the process. We are in constant dialogue with all partners on how we can best use the international conference for the implementation of the two-state solution in June to advance Palestinian statehood. There are key points on which we can move this agenda, and, with the French and Saudi leadership, we are committed to the two-state solution conference in New York. It comes at a crucial time to ensure that a Palestine state remains viable.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I am not going to get into the issue of the numbers, but the fact is that it is 10 weeks since aid was allowed into Gaza. We cannot but be moved, not only this House but this nation, by the pictures of young children, some of whom were born after 7 October. Given the dire situation, particularly with baby food, will the Minister consider emergency air drops of baby products within the next 72 hours?
I raise also the issue of access to sanitary products for women and girls. From reports I have seen, there is a dire shortage, and women and girls are often going without them, so will the Minister also consider emergency air drops of sanitary products?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I appreciate the noble Lord’s concern; I think everyone in this House is concerned about how we can get aid in. I recall the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, reminding me, when I made such calls, that it is not simply a matter of sending a plane over a piece of land and dropping material. The most important area we have discussed is how we distribute the aid. How do we get that aid specifically to the people who most need it? UNRWA and the road routes are so important because they can deliver the amount of aid that is needed in a short period. However, I am not ruling out anything we could do to alleviate this situation. But we must be clear that blocking aid into Gaza has been the responsibility of the Government of Israel, and that should be where our focus is.
India-Pakistan: Escalation
Debate between Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Mohammed of Tinsley(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord and I have discussed these issues many times. His Government and this Government are at one on de-escalation and stable relationships being the priority. From those stable relationships come the opportunity to address a longer-term solution. As he rightly says, it is a solution that India and Pakistan must address themselves while taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s Statement and agree that it has been heartbreaking to see the loss of Kashmiri lives on both sides of the line of control. I declare an interest as I am from Kashmir and my brother-in- law is in Chakswari, a town which is just down the valley from one of the towns that was hit, Kotli, so it is personal for me. We as a family are praying for his safe return to the United Kingdom with his son.
I want to press the Minister on how we de-escalate. The Indus Waters Treaty, negotiated with the World Bank in the 1960s, gave Pakistan access to the water from the three northern rivers and India from the three southern rivers. Can the Government ask New Delhi to return to it? It is really important; water is essential for human life. I also want the Government to call on Pakistan to open up Pakistani airspace for Indian airlines. Those two actions jointly will help to calm the situation. We cannot have tension in the streets. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, about community tensions. We cannot see what we saw in Leicester, where groups of young men from both communities were at each other’s throats. Any attack on any high commission in London should be condemned. I hope that the Minister can answer the questions about the Indus Water Treaty and the airspace for Indian airlines.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for those questions. He is right. Last week, in addressing an Urgent Question, we covered the water treaty and appealed for it not to be disrupted. As he says, access to water is fundamental to human life. I understand his point about airspace. Any action by both Governments that can de-escalate and create that opportunity for a return to stable relationships is important.
All our diplomatic efforts are to ensure that de-escalation, which I know my honourable friend Minister Falconer stressed earlier today, and we are working through all possible channels to deliver that message. The noble Lord is also right to focus on community cohesion, and we will focus on that, too. It is not just the Government’s voice; we need to ensure that all community leaders and faith leaders can embrace that call. I welcome his comments very much.