Pension Schemes Bill

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 19th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, we know that a much higher percentage of pension fund assets could happily be invested in UK assets; indeed, that was the case when I was managing pension funds. It is not the case now entirely because of what politicians have done to the system. We should seek to undo that, not fudge it, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, said.

My recommendation to the Government is that, rather than giving themselves power, they should give pensioners and investors in pension schemes power. There are structures in the Bill that allow pensioners to express their opinions on what their money is being invested in, but nothing that gives any effect to that. I suspect that most of us receive our annual returns from the pension funds we are part of and put them straight in the bin, because there is nothing we can do with them. We ought to be in a position to do something that would have an effect. I recommend that the Government choose that route rather than the one they have chosen.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, of all the amendments we have tabled and discussed on this Bill, for me, this group is the most important. Mandation is, rightly and understandably, the most contentious part of the Bill. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have helped raise awareness of this issue, which, as I am sure the Minister is aware, has garnered a lot of attention—and criticism—outside of this place.

The ABI has written to the Minister in the other place, Torsten Bell, to warn him of its “serious concerns” about the mandation power, saying that it is “not necessary” for the Government to mandate investment. It has asked the Government to withdraw this part of the Bill. Pensions UK has been unambiguous on this point. It too has called on the Government to remove this power from the Bill, warning that it would harm

“free and open market competition aimed at driving better saver outcomes”.

It has said that mandation would

“put those outcomes at risk”.

More recently, Paul Johnson, formerly of the IFS, wrote strongly against mandation in an article in the Times. Just the headline and strapline will give the Minister all the information she needs:

“Telling pension funds where to invest will not end well. The government’s desire to boost UK assets is understandable, but overriding the fiduciary duty of trustees crosses a line”.


The industry is clear, the experts are clear and much of this House is clear that the Government should not be directing private sector investment. It is obvious that this power overrides the fiduciary duty of trustees. This is a radical step, and it establishes the principle that it is appropriate and desirable for Governments to tell schemes how to invest to meet their own political objectives. The Government are right to want investment in UK assets—indeed, I am sure that no one in this Chamber would not welcome more money in UK assets. However, if the picture is not where we want it to be, the question for the Government is: why? Why is the UK not attracting that capital? What barriers exist? What reforms are needed?

Instead of doing that work, the Government have reached for a shortcut, a reserve power that is really a threat to compel investment. This is reckless. It sets a dangerous precedent, and the Government’s central defence—that they do not intend to use the power—raises two unavoidable questions. First, if they never intend to use the power, why are they legislating for it? Secondly, how can the Minister assure us that the power will not be used when they will not be in office for ever? This power is going into law, and I am afraid it will outlast the Minister and indeed all of us. The noble Baroness cannot speak for future Administrations, or indeed political parties such as Reform, God help us, which has signalled a great willingness to direct investment. The Government are handing this power not merely to their own Ministers but to future Ministers.

I will not detain the House any further than to say that this power must be removed. It is a massive overstep from the Government and, despite all the assurances of the Minister, no one is yet convinced that this can remain. Industry rejects it, experts have expressed serious concerns about it, and the Minister must remove it. I am sure she has listened to all noble Lords’ contributions. As my noble friend Lord Wolfson said, we must remove this Robert Maxwell power. We on these Benches, and I am sure others, will support the noble Baroness wholeheartedly if she seeks to divide the House on this matter.

Pension Schemes Bill

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 16th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Thurso (LD)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to offer support from these Benches, particularly for Amendments 24 and 25 and more broadly across all the amendments that the noble Baroness indicated.

In particular, I was taken by Amendment 24 and the idea that value for money regulations should include, among other things, the

“accuracy of recorded contributions … reliability of valuation data”

and the “efficiency of administration”. As any poor civil servant who is currently trying to get hold of a pension administered by Capita is finding out, these things are not a given. Making sure that the small number of quite large firms in the marketplace actually deliver with the necessary competence is a really important part of whether pensioners get value for money. As I say, I broadly welcome and support the amendment.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, it is a long time since I was managing big pension funds in the 1980s. In those days, we were in the happy position of considering it a bit underweight if you had less than half your money in British stocks; now, it is 5%. It is extraordinary for politicians to have done that to the economy—and it is because of us that it has dropped. The way we have framed our regulations and organised how pension funds are assessed has, over time, resulted in that extraordinary diminution. This has left us with a stock market that is cash negative and a City that is immensely weaker than it would be. We will address this later, but the solutions to that problem perhaps lie in this part of the Bill.

If we communicate better with pensioners and say to them, “Do you really trust the country you live in, are part of and benefit from so little that you want only 5% of your pension in it?”, I think we would get a positive response to the idea that perhaps that figure should be higher. Through the mechanisms in this part of the Bill, we could ask pension fund managers to respond to that, and I hope that we would be able then to get away from the bits in the Bill about compulsion and direction that are causing difficulty to my noble friends, whose concerns I share. I think we would get a good response if we informed members of pension funds, as my noble friend said, so that they could take good decisions, and then empowered them to say that they want to back their own, with a good chunk of their money going to improve, invest in and support this country and take it forward. This bit of the Bill would be a good place to do that.

I hope the Minister can confirm that, in the governance aspects of this, it will be expected that pension fund managers should vote their shares. It is extraordinary that we have moved to a position where the owners of companies just do not vote—they do not use that power to decide what their opinion is on what companies have been doing; they merely buy and sell. That is a huge diminution in the mechanism by which companies are held to account. We need people to vote and to take an interest. Having a direction on pension funds that they should participate and be a real part of the corporate governance process would be a useful thing to come out of this Bill.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I have three points. First, I profoundly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. To pin the blame just on politicians lets everyone else off scot-free. It is more like Murder on the Orient Express—everyone had a hand. My particular favourite is the accountants, who had a big hand; the way they defined accounting for pension costs was pernicious. Let us not blame just the politicians.

Secondly, one cannot not be in favour of value for money. Obviously, we are all in favour of people getting value for money from their pension schemes. However, I think the Government underestimate the difficulty of providing something useful. As the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, pointed out, there are more than two or three factors to be taken into account. It is particularly difficult when one starts including prospective factors—how are these to be judged? It is very difficult, and it is not just the factors. The pension holders’ circumstances vary so widely. How can there be a simple, straightforward way of assessing whether someone has had value for money when their needs are so different from those of other people who are saving for their pension?

Thirdly, I apologise for not being present in the Chamber to support the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, in the previous group. I realise I am cheating here, but I was elsewhere. I had not realised that one of the groups had disappeared; otherwise, I would have been here and supported his amendment.

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

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Lucas]

That this House regrets that the Schools (Recording and Reporting of Seclusion and Restraint) (England) Regulations 2025 are accompanied by an impact assessment that underestimates the cost of implementation; and that they do not enable the best use of the information which will be recorded by schools.

Relevant document: 48th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for drawing my attention to these regulations. The committee is the punishment battalion of the House of Lords committee system. I have served my time on it and know that you get a huge pile of papers every week and you absolutely have to read and understand them all—there is no escape. It is a huge amount of hard work, and I am very grateful to it. The committee picked up on the impact assessment, but that focused on private schools only. My concerns run wider.

I do not disagree with the directions that the regulations are taking to make schools safer and involve parents more, particularly when we have the prospect of more SEND children in mainstream education. Incidents that require seclusion are unplanned, cathartic happenings. Suddenly, a child is banging his head on his desk uncontrollably, and the teacher, whoever they are, has to know what to do. There has to be an effective system of support for that teacher and the child, and proper records have to be made. Schools ought to be self-critical and self-improving places, and parents ought to be involved.

However, good things absorb time, especially what should be teacher downtime and senior management team time. Good things cost money and good things, if not thought through, displace other good things. It is important to think through carefully the objectives, methods and impact when we are creating things such as these regulations. In the case of these regulations, that was clearly not done.

The fact that the impact assessment covers only independent schools is ridiculous. Most of the impact of these regulations is on state schools. That is where the cost for the system and for the Government lies. We are told that the training requirement is two staff in the school. Who have the Government talked to? It is clear that they have talked to nobody. My local secondary school has every staff member trained—of course they have to be trained, as they are the ones in front of whom these incidents occur. They have to be masters of de-escalation and understand how to call in the support system. Every single one of them needs to be trained to a standard.

As for the response, in an average-sized secondary school with about 1,000 pupils, there are 20 fully trained staff members who are capable of dealing with the details of an incident. To say two staff are needed shows that the Government are living in a different world. On the time to record, the impact assessment says 30 to 120 seconds. Having talked to schools, lawyers and others, I know that a simple incident would take an hour and a complicated one a day. There is so much to be done and there are lots of people who have to be brought into the discussion. Time has to be taken to help the teacher wind down, quite apart from looking after the child. There needs to be care taken to record fully and accurately exactly what has happened and time taken to learn from it.

On frequency, the impact assessment uses the rate of internal exclusions, but that process is not in any way connected to isolation or restraint. In a secondary school, there are maybe 50 internal exclusions a week, varying in severity from 10 minutes to a day. There may be two seclusions a week. There is just no connection between the two. There is no way that internal exclusions should have been used, let alone suggested, as a measure for how frequent isolation is.

We are looking, all in all, in the state system, at a cost in the order of £100 million per annum—that is the steady state; I am not talking about the initial cost for getting everyone up to speed. In alternative provision or special schools, we have a totally different environment, where the sort of outbursts that are rare in mainstream education may be anticipated, part of the makeup of a child and something the school has to adapt to over the long term. They require a different approach and a different set of regulations. That does not seem to be provided for in the regulations or discussed in the impact assessment.

When it comes to the detail of which incidents are and are not seclusion, it is hard to tell from what is in the regulations whether what you have in front of you is or is not covered by them. It is acknowledged that we have very little data on what is happening on seclusion, but the Government’s proposals for gathering further data are limited. Altogether, the regulations and impact assessment are lackadaisical, unserious and uncaring, and they are unconnected to reality. It is important that the Department for Education does much better.

It is not hard. All it takes is to do what I have done and talk to some heads, some lawyers and the school unions, and sense check what has been produced. That takes only a few hours. I would like the Department for Education to review the processes, especially the supervision, that generated the regulations and the impact statement we have in front of us. Understanding reality, having the courage to trust professionals, working out which strategies will yield the best results and getting the wording right are important to make sure that the impact of these things on schools is kept within bounds. As I said, a sense check is needed. Have a set of friends that you can turn to and ask for advice. What is really going on in schools? How will these proposals work in practice?

The impact statement says, and I agree, that there is a lack of good data. The department and schools should be collecting all the data they need to understand what is going on with seclusion and restraint, how it varies through the system and how best to improve practice. The Government should be asking all schools for a simple record of everything, including incidents resolved without the need to employ seclusion or restraint. This data is there in the electronic systems of schools—it is quick and easy to produce. With a total picture of what is going on, it would be much easier for the department to formulate policy.

When the department wants to look at things in detail and gauge what is required, by way of detailed research, having the overall picture will make it much easier to select the right examples and the right coverage and for the department to gain a real understanding of best and worst practice in the system. Having the overall data will enable individual schools to benchmark themselves and look at how they compare with other schools in the system, and that will help their improvement.

I very much hope that the Government will also improve their proposals for data collection. The Government have a commitment to high quality in schools. They should have a commitment to high quality in their regulations. I beg to move.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I have spent many years working with young people, particularly the most vulnerable. We on these Benches support the main aims of this statutory instrument. The safety, dignity, and well-being of our children must always come first. When a young person is secluded, it means they are kept alone or physically restrained and their movement limited. It is a serious step. These sensitive situations must be handled with great care, and it is therefore right that we improve transparency. It is also right that parents receive a written record of what has happened, as soon as possible. The department is correct in recognising that seclusion can be just as harmful as the use of force. However, although the principle behind these regulations is sound, there are concerns about how the Government have gone about introducing them.

First, we should acknowledge the confusion that occurred during the rollout. As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee pointed out, the original measure had to be withdrawn and replaced because the Minister accidentally signed the wrong draft. We ask our students to check their work carefully before handing it in. It is reasonable to expect the same standards here. As the committee rightly said, this kind of mistake should not have happened.

However, the bigger concern is the Government’s impact assessment. The Government estimate that the cost of recording these incidents will be between £1.6 million and £6.3 million a year, equivalent to the time of about 137 full-time teachers. Yet this estimate only includes 2,443 independent schools in England. Why? Because the Department for Education decided that state schools are not businesses and therefore left them out of the calculations. This is a serious oversight. There are more than 21,000 state schools in England—almost nine times the number of independent schools. By leaving them out, the Government have avoided confronting the true cost of this policy. In reality, the amount of teaching time required will be far greater than the figures suggest.

We should also look at the assumptions behind these figures. The department estimates that it will take two teachers between 30 and 120 seconds to record an incident and report it to a parent. Has anyone making these calculations worked in a busy school recently? The idea that two teachers can promptly and sensitively record an incident involving restraint and seclusion in one or two minutes does not reflect reality. As the committee noted, the estimated time is unrealistically low. In practice, this will mean that already overworked, overstretched teachers will have to work longer hours or spend less time on the other important tasks such as teaching and supporting their pupils.

Let me be clear: we fully support the aims of protecting students and ensuring that parents are properly informed. However, how the Government introduced these measures raises legitimate concerns. There have been unavoidable procedural mistakes and very optimistic estimates of the time involved. The impact assessment leaves out 21,000 state schools, where most of this work will take place. What practical support will be provided to teachers in state schools to help them meet these new responsibilities without the unreasonable burden on staff—who are already working extremely hard?

--- Later in debate ---

In closing, I thank noble Lords for raising the points they have today, for prompting discussion and, I hope, for enabling me to clarify some of the points that have been made and to respond on the broader intention of the regulations. The Government will continue to work closely with schools, parents and the wider sector to ensure that restrictive interventions are used only when absolutely necessary, always safely, always lawfully and always in the best interests of children.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her comprehensive reply, much of which I completely agreed with. I take issue with only two points.

The first is the restriction of the impact assessment to independent schools. In understanding how regulations work and the effect they will have on the system, and sharing that information with Parliament, surely the policy should be that the coverage should be extended to include state schools, which will bear the great majority of the consequences of these regulations. Not to share that with Parliament, as the committee observed, is surely not the right way of going about things.

Secondly, when it comes to data collection, most schools will have this data. Data collection is just a matter of turning a switch or two in the central system so that that data then flows into the governance system, with no extra recording and no extra actions needed beyond adding a few fields to the data already going to government. I really do not understand that that is difficult. However, I am grateful to the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion withdrawn.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Lords Chamber

None of these amendments denies the state its powers. They ask that those powers be exercised with care and in a manner that is compatible with the Human Rights Act. None of them weakens safeguarding; they aim to make it more accurate. None of them privileges parents; they exist for the sake of children. I urge the House to support them.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, new Section 434A(6)(b)(i) asks the local authority to consider

“that it would be in the child’s best interests to receive education by regular attendance at school”.

But no child attends school: they attend a school. They might attend the school where the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, works—fine—or they might go to the school depicted in episode 2 of “Adolescence”. That would have me hoicking my child out in a millisecond, and there are a lot of schools like that.

My noble friend’s Amendment 175ZD is therefore an important potential addition to the Bill. There should not be a presumption that any school is better than any home education, but that is where we are heading with this bit of the Bill. We are putting a duty on local authorities to judge and giving them the presumption that the child should be put into school. It is like buying IBM when I was young: it is the safe choice. If local authorities allow someone to be home educated, they are taking all the risks on themselves, but if they chuck the child into school, any school, there are no risks. So all the emphasis on how a local authority officer should behave is focused on pushing a child into school, whatever the circumstances.

That is a deep fault in the Bill, and Amendment 122 from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, is the right solution to it. There should be some court oversight of the judgment of local authorities, otherwise there is a complete imbalance. We know how local authorities behave; they drive into the easy answers because that is life—I only have 70 years’ experience of it. Going for the safe answer is the natural, human thing to do, and you are asking a huge amount of a local authority to expect it to stand up against that. We must produce a countervailing force somewhere in the Bill. I would choose Amendment 122 from the amendments on offer, and I hope that the Government will see the wisdom of moving in that direction.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, we have come a long way on the issue of home education and safeguarding. I want to start by thanking the Minister for her comments at the beginning of this group. I was also taken with the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, who reminded us that education is compulsory, but schooling is not. We want all our learning and education, whether it is in school or at home, to be the best that can be provided. We want our schools to be safe and we want children who are home educated to be safe.

I remind the House of where we currently stand. Any parent can take their child out of school just like that: no notification or form-filling, they just take their child out. They take them to their home and apparently, hopefully, maybe or definitely home educate them—we do not know. There are some parents who are absolutely determined that their children get the best home education that they can give them. However, we also have situations at the other extreme, where, for example, unregistered fundamentalist religious schools have been closed down. They home educate children in small groups, because they are allowed to, and nobody knows what is going on in those schools. That cannot be and is not right.

You can have a home educator who brings people in to enthuse and inspire; you can have home educators who link up with other home educators and organise summer camps or particular field trips. That is wonderful. However, at the other end, you can have a home education system where an individual is brought in to teach the children who might, for example, be a paedophile, and we would never know, because there are no safeguarding requirements. That is not the way that our education system should work. Our children, whether they are at home or in school, should be safeguarded and properly taught. They should learn and be inspired, enthused et cetera.

I am of conscious of three amendments that are really important. I like the idea—although that is the wrong word—of Amendment 125 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I want to see us move more and more to where home educators regard local authorities not as interferers but as people who can support and work with them. One of the things that we need to understand is why parents want to home educate, and, if they choose to go down that route, how we can support and help them. A pilot scheme, where we have a conversation with parents before they go down the route of home education, is not interfering, bullying or suggesting that they do not do it, but listening to the concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I got around to reading all these amendments only today, and I was quite impressed. I felt that in some ways this is your Lordships’ House at its best, because this is all from personal experience. People are talking about something they know very intimately and can therefore put the necessary emphasis where it matters: the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson—le petit Guillaume—and the noble, Lord Wei, with his home schooling.

I feel that we have completely failed children who are home educated; we have not understood how important that aspect of education is for many children. At the moment, there are excessive data powers, legal ambiguity and the erosion of long-standing parental rights. It is just so much worse than it could be, and I feel very sad about that. I have three grandchildren who were home educated; two are now studying at Cambridge and the other is making films, so their home education did not hold them back. I am concerned about the digital ID as there are no safeguards on sharing that information. There are unchecked powers for the local authorities, and there was no meaningful consultation or risk assessment. Therefore, home-educated children are subject to a higher level of scrutiny and data extraction, and it just seems that we are going to a place where a lot of children are going to be very disadvantaged, because being taught at home is not an option for them.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I very much support my noble friend’s Amendment 157A. One of the fundamental things that can come out of this register is proper information for Parliament on what is happening in home education, and I very much hope that we will receive that.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to the two amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. I hope I will be able to see the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, on YouTube. Was it a goose, did he say?

Our creative industries are hugely important to this country—we are world leaders—and children and young people play a huge part in their success. One of my ex-pupils, Josh Bolt, was a regular on “Last Tango in Halifax” and, sadly, “Benidorm”; I know that the schooling side worked for Josh.

We are so lucky to have in this House people who have real expertise in particular areas. Obviously, the noble Baroness brings it in relation to the performing arts sector, so we have to listen with great care to what she says. During the coalition, we promised a review— I think PACT was involved—and that decision in 2014 needs to be looked at again. If young people are acting or performing, we need to ensure that they are safeguarded and that their education is there. We also need to ensure that the system does not prohibit them making a valuable contribution, not least to their own career development. I hope the Minister will say some warm and wise words on those amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has just said, particularly the thanks to the Minister for the time and consideration of civil servants and the many excellent government amendments in this group that reflect that.

I too think that Amendment 135A and the versions of it tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, are really worth considering and, alongside them, as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has said, Amendment 172A and other aspects of cyber security. This is a collection of information about children. We need to be very careful about it. I hope the Government will not allow local authorities to develop their own versions of software to do this but will do this centrally and to the highest standards.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, my amendments in this group pull in two slightly different directions. If the Minister and her officials are confused, I apologise, but I will try to explain why.

The main thrust of my amendments, as the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Hacking, both said, is to try to simplify the amount of specific detail required to be held on the register in future. I too very much welcome the Government’s decision to simplify a lot of the information that was in the original draft of the Bill and to leave a bit more room for professional curiosity on the part of the home education team in the local authority. My Amendments 135A, 135B and 146A all point in this direction and give the Government different options—a pick-and-mix menu to achieve this end. Amendment 146B would make it clear that a local authority can request further information where it believes that a child might not be receiving a suitable education or that their welfare may be at risk.

In the other direction is my Amendment 143B— I hope the Minister will be able to address this specifically when she sums up—which would establish a duty to record information relating to care proceedings. I think that is missing from the current list, but the Minister will tell me whether I am right or wrong on that. This would include information relating not just to the child but to their siblings. We are all aware of cases where siblings or half-siblings are in care proceedings, perhaps if they are babies or under five, but an older child might not be. It feels highly relevant, if a child is going to be taken out of school, that the local authority has that level of concern about other children in the family. I hope the Minister feels able to accept that and perhaps bring back a government amendment at Third Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendments 160 and 175ZC, which we have heard so much about. The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, when talking to Amendment 158, painted a very rosy picture of parents being signposted to happy centres where their children could all take wonderful exams and obviously achieve enormous success. However, the reality, from what I have seen and heard, is a very different thing. Amendment 175ZC provides a very clean solution.

Access to exams is the golden thread. We want as many of our students to succeed—they have to do their exams. If they are driving hundreds of miles, that is not going to work. I genuinely think that working in partnership with local state schools would be quite a simple thing. There is always room in an exam hall for an extra 10 people, and you have the invigilators already. It would be a very simple thing, so I urge the Government to accept these amendments.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, in the spring of 2024, my noble friend Lady Barran was kind enough to allow me to explore what is going wrong with GCSE provision for home-educated people. I was foolish enough to think that the election would be in October, so I never got to the end of that process, but it is clear from the work that I did that there are a number of things the Government can do to help.

--- Later in debate ---

My last point is this. I ask the right reverend Prelate to consider this. I think he has tabled this amendment to protect yeshivas, but it opens up the ability of anyone of any faith to set up a school where children are getting religious instruction from 8 am to 6 pm and home education after that. That is a direction of travel that we would not wish to embark on, so I oppose the amendment.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I do not read this amendment in the same way as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, does, but I will come to that. I start with renewed thanks to the Minister for the time that she and her officials have given to me and thanks to the right reverend Prelate for tabling this amendment.

This Bill exemplifies how we are setting clear expectations of the standards that we should set for people who choose to educate their children outside the school system. We should not be ashamed of that. This is an honourable and right thing to do. My main answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, is that, if they are not achieving home education, they are in trouble. There must be home education which is up to the standard we think it should be. If not, it will be in contravention of this Bill.

However, that does not appear to be the problem, at least with the Haredi communities that I have been in correspondence with. We have principles—and they have principles—about how children should be educated. The Prime Minister and others in government have made much of their respect and care for our Jewish communities. It would not be consistent with those statements to tip hundreds of families within the Haredi community into conflict with the state and courts without doing our best to reconcile their views on education and ours.

However, tipping them into conflict is what this Bill in its raw form does, as the Government’s own impact statement accepts. The Haredi community, for all the differences between its ancient traditions and our secular ways, is entirely worthy of our care and respect. It is law-abiding. It makes a positive contribution to our economy. Its children lead productive and fulfilling lives. There is clearly a lot of good going on.

We should therefore step back from the punitive approach that this Bill allows for and enter a process of building a mutual understanding. What does Haredi education achieve in practice? What exactly are their religious red lines? What aspects of Haredi education do we want to see improved? What is the best way of getting that? We have clearly put the Haredi community, or substantial parts of it, in a state of fear. The Government are pushing through this Bill unamended, asking the Haredi community to trust in the department’s good will to devise regulations it will be able to work with. This surely is the time for a clear statement from the Minister that the Government are committed to reaching an outcome that allows both sets of principles to be observed.

I understood from the officials we met that yeshivas to be regulated as IEIs under this Bill are not to be expected to provide the whole of a child’s education. This is most welcome and a cornerstone of eventual agreement. Yeshivas provide religious education; their children’s general education is provided through the elective home education system and should be held to the same standards as we are holding all elective home education to. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that understanding.

Discussion will throw up some areas of fundamental agreement, such as safeguarding, where the focus will be on getting the mechanisms right, and other areas of deep disagreement. We should be determined to resolve those disagreements. My limited experience of listening to the Haredi community and my long experience of listening to the DfE gives me a lot of confidence that we will see a positive outcome for both parties. We should set a reasonable timescale for this process. A couple of years, as discussed with officials at our most recent meeting, will be a period long enough not to cramp discussion and short enough for it to be clear that those discussions must reach a conclusion. We should involve all the main strands of Haredi thought. The DfE has been here before in successfully setting up an elective home education working group in an environment of strong and diverse opinions. Such a working group would build confidence within the Haredi community that it was heard and understood. A Minister should be involved, as some of the questions to be resolved clearly require the application of ministerial judgment.

We should understand the depth of our misunderstandings. We find it hard, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, illustrated, to believe that children will have the energy and focus for a good general education if the school day is full of religious studies. But as the right reverend Prelate said, they do not return home to their devices, computer games and all the other things that distract our children; they lead a much more focused life—they clearly do. If you look at the outcomes, the people they grow up to be, they clearly do absorb, very effectively, a good, broad general education. If we express our wishes in terms of the results we desire, not in terms of structures created for other purposes, I believe that we will build mutual understanding and trust. We should listen to the Haredi community’s exposition of its principles and explore how those principles can be upheld, at the same time as we uphold ours. I very much hope that the Minister will, in her reply, commit her Government to such a course.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, faith schools play an important part in our country’s education and are to be valued, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, rightly said, we also believe that all children should have access to a broad and balanced curriculum. If we accommodate changes for one religious faith group, that should be available to any faith group or religious group that wants the same. We have, as a country, probably created one of the most successful multicultural, multifaith communities in the world. We should cherish that, but we should also be aware of the dangers that potentially lie ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, it was a pleasure to listen to the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, which was about a modest change to the remit of the TRA. However, I support Amendment 190, to which I have added my name, precisely not to extend the TRA’s remit in two particular ways—that the TRA should be allowed to consider, as the noble Baroness opposite said, complaints about behaviour before someone becomes a qualified and practising teacher, and that it should be allowed to consider complaints after someone has stopped teaching.

I do not know whether there is any confusion in the minds of anyone in the Government. Clearly, if someone interrupts their teaching and then wants to come back to it, that is a different matter. If we are talking about people who have permanently left teaching, though, it seems unreasonable for the TRA to proceed. With regard to people against whom the TRA might seek to proceed before they have started teaching, the National Education Union says:

“Once the door is opened to pre-career conduct, it becomes very difficult to draw principled boundaries. How far back should investigations reach? Should conduct as a teenager or student be included? What weight should be given to immaturity, context, or personal development?”


What about what both the noble Baroness opposite and I described in the meeting with Minister Gould, which I was very pleased to attend, as “youthful high jinks”, which in no way reaches any kind of criminality but someone might seek to complain about?

There is a real problem here. Even Minister Gould said that she could see we were saying that these proposals seemed to be too much of a broad brush, and that is indeed my concern. Teachers are rightly held to very high standards and, although we heard some egregious examples of bad behaviour from teachers, in general the vast majority not only are held to high standards but meet and exceed them. Therefore, to create the pressure of the possibility that someone could complain about pre-career conduct or post-retirement conduct seems to be an unnecessary burden to put on both the teaching profession and the TRA, which is not currently able to manage the workload it has, although that is not my prime consideration.

Noble Lords will have heard from the noble Baroness opposite that during the meeting we hoped that there might be some movement on this. Like her, I have now had the letter from Minister Gould, who says:

“I also want to assure you that we are committing to setting out in guidance a framework which makes clear the factors that will need to be considered before the TRA can proceed with an investigation … We will do this in consultation with the sector and unions in due course”.


As the noble Baroness opposite said, and as has been said from many corners of this Chamber on many occasions, setting out guidance in a framework is not the same as having something in the Bill. The NEU concludes:

“Even if guidance later seeks to limit this, primary legislation would authorise the power, and guidance alone cannot cure an overly broad statutory remit”.


It is with regret that I say that I think the Government have got it wrong on this. However, I am slightly pleased that there will be a consultation and I am sure that the sector and the unions will engage very vigorously in that. If this amendment is not accepted, I hope that this being in the Bill does not set the tone and imply that we think there is every reason to have open season on anyone who might become a teacher or once was a teacher.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am thoroughly in favour of Amendment 191A. I have been involved in that sort of situation a couple of times in my life. It makes an enormous difference for someone facing a perilous investigation to have someone beside them to make the points that make it clear that the school—or whichever organisation—has got it wrong. It is a very hard thing to do yourself; it is much easier if you have someone beside you to take that burden. I recommend that the Government pursue Amendment 191A.

I also very much hope the Government will pursue the amendment advocated by my noble friend Lady Spielman. We have to get the complaints system right. I had a go at this in Committee and got bounced by the Government consistently. It would really reduce the burdens on people dealing with complaints to have something that takes the weight off, has a really good triage system, is really good at explaining to people why their complaint is rubbish and nonsense and is equally good at making sure it gets to the right person with the right advice tagged to it. It would also increase the effectiveness of justified complaints. Parents taking to social media and having the police called on them is not the right way forward.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Lucas]

449: Clause 53, page 115, line 26, at end insert—
“85ZB Co-operation in providing parents with admissions information(1) A local authority in England and the governing body of a maintained school in England must co-operate in the provision of admissions information to parents. (2) The governing body of such a school, where it is the admissions authority for the school, must provide the local authority with such admissions information as is specified in regulations in the electronic format set out in those regulations, within the timescale set out in those regulations.(3) Within one month of the deadline for schools to provide that information, a local authority must publish the information so provided and the equivalent information for schools for which it is the admissions authority in the same electronic format.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that complete, accurate, and consistent admissions information is available to all parents.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, my hope is that this amendment has been rendered unnecessary by the Government’s plan for school profiles, so I will speak to the principles of it rather than the details. For parents, admissions information is of great importance. If they are looking around for a school for their child, they need an understanding of which schools they have a chance of getting them into. The admission rules and outcomes from those rules are vital information for parents.

Local authorities used to publish a booklet every year setting out exactly that—what the rules were and what the outcomes had been—but the more that academy schools have grown, the less that has become the practice. I ran off the booklet for East Sussex—where I live—senior schools. Out of the 20 or so schools available at secondary level, full admissions information is available only for four of them. The others just say, “Contact school”. Although there is supposed to be a system whereby schools provide local authorities with the information they can put in their schools booklets, this is no longer happening.

East Sussex is by no means an outlier. This is common. The system for providing parents with easily accessible schools admissions information has broken down. If, as part of the forthcoming school profiles, we are to have proper school information available on the government website and if, as with the other excellent information that they provide on that website, it will be available in electronic form in bulk, then we have solved this problem. I hope that is the answer. If not, we must do something to get back to the position we all thought we were in. I beg to move.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I have not had much input into the Bill, which colleagues with much greater knowledge of the issues than me have covered so ably, but I have tabled two amendments in this group, Amendments 452A and 452B. Refugee and asylum-seeking children and those on resettlement schemes may be among the most disadvantaged in our society. They may be accompanied, but the adult or adults with them may be as traumatised as the children. I should like any child in the asylum process or with refugee status, irrespective of whether they fall under the category of unaccompanied asylum-seeking child, to be treated as worthy of special treatment. This is unlikely to open the floodgates, but it would help some very needy children who otherwise would fall outside the criteria. I hope the Minister will be able to look kindly on these modest amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I think I was pretty clear about the position that the Government take with respect to the admissions arrangements of faith schools, and it is not intended to change that.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

But the Government are changing that, my Lords. I was part of the debates where we arrived at the 50% figure. I remember the Catholic schools playing a very strong part in that debate. It was very much understood that the schools created could quite clearly have a strong religious character and be directed and run in that way but not becoming isolated parts of the community, fracturing it and separating it. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, one has only to look at Northern Ireland to see the difficulties caused by a fully segregated system.

We agreed a system for avoiding that. Why are the Government now going back on it? Where is the argument coming from? It does not appear to be coming from the Church of England—the right reverend Prelate has been silent on these amendments. We have not heard any other religious voices saying, “Thank you so much, this is what we want”. Who has been lobbying for this? Where is the pressure coming from for the Government to give in and make this change? It is not at all obvious—and the Government are not being open or clear about—what the motivation is or what outcome they wish for. Presumably, they are hoping that a collection of 100% religious character schools will be founded over the next year or two. Where are those schools intended to be? What kind of schools are they looking at? What future are the Government letting us in for? I really think they owe us some clarity and some openness on this so that we can understand what they are doing and what they intend to do to our society.

This is a really important set of issues. Binding us together as a nation has never been more important. We are threatened from various angles now. Why are the Government adding to that dissolution of our nation? I can see that I am not going to get anything out of the Minister now.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I will respond and, as I said, I will write. The noble Lord is enormously overstating the very specific circumstances to which these criteria would relate. This is not an invitation by the Government to enormously increase the number of faith schools. This is a requirement specifically relating to the provisions about opening a new school contained in the Bill. I will write to noble Lords about that point.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I look forward to that, but I very much regret that the settlement that we reached should be torn up in this way.

When it comes to my own Amendment 449, it is all very well for the Government to say that there should be a composite prospectus, but there is not one. It used to exist, absolutely, but that is not what is available now. If you look for an East Sussex composite prospectus, it is not there. What is there is a confusing passage among a collection of documents and websites; then it is back to the school and off to here or there. We have produced a system where the really diligent, intelligent, motivated parent can find their way through, but anyone—

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

In that case, East Sussex is not fulfilling the requirements of the statutory code that I spelled out in my response. I would be surprised if that were the case but, obviously, if it were, I would be willing to look into it. The Government have made clear the requirement both on schools to publish their admissions arrangements on their websites and on local authorities to publish a composite prospectus about the admissions arrangements of all the schools in their areas.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I have not done a complete survey, but I am not aware of a single local authority that does produce a composite prospectus in the old style any more. I absolutely take—

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord might have put quite a lot of emphasis on the “in the old style” expression there. I think the requirement is for this to be on a website. I am not sure that production of a written prospectus for all parents is necessarily something that we would require in this day and age, is it?

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

No, I would expect a website or maybe a PDF, but something containing the information that is supposed to make it possible for parents to go to one place and see the admissions criteria and how they work, for all the schools within the local authority that they might be interested in. This is widely not happening, and nor is that information available on school websites; I checked a few as the Minister had challenged on that and, no, I cannot find that either. There is supposed to be a system, but there is not so, yes, I will take up her invitation to pursue this afterwards. It is important that we get back to a system where ordinary, hard-pressed parents can easily find the information they need to make good decisions for their children.

I very much hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me at some stage that the admissions information will form part of the school’s profile, as talked about in the announcement that was made at the same time as the announcement of the new Ofsted systems. There is real promise in that. I should like it if she could tell me more about the Government’s plans for what should be in that profile and how that will evolve; I should be very grateful. But, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 449 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, no one stands to speak here or anywhere else about SEND without preparing for a social media barrage from one direction or another. But unless we can discuss the underlying problems and tensions openly and honestly, there can be little hope of getting to a better place than we are in at the moment.

From the parents’ point of view, some are happy, but others say that theoretical entitlements do not translate into the support they believe their child needs. From the schools’ perspective, they are loaded with enormous expectations and have inadequate resources to meet them. From the funders’ perspective, eye-watering amounts of money are already being spent on SEND.

If you do the sums, the average household in England already contributes £450 a year just for the cost of the high needs funding block, on top of the other money it contributes for education. Yet local authorities, and behind them the taxpayer, must meet almost unlimited demand from this large but finite resource, with few levers to direct that resource to the activities where it will make the most difference.

As my noble friend Lord Gove said in a previous group, the SEND category has expanded and diversified to an extraordinary degree in recent years. Among other things, I think we are mixing up the children who have conditions that will always affect their lives with those who really only need some catch-up teaching or some extra encouragement, and who should be able to lead unimpaired adult lives. They are really quite different things.

Clearly, this situation cannot go on, and that explains the raft of amendments relating to SEND proposed for insertion after Clause 62, as the Bill does not contain any direct proposals for SEND. In aggregate, what I take from these proposed amendments is a hope that if only we can find a few more ways to extend and push harder, everything will be better.

There are certainly ideas that deserve attention within these amendments. We do need a national body for SEND, but what we need is the SEND equivalent of NICE: a body that collates and, where necessary, commissions evidence of the effectiveness of and value for money of SEND interventions, and that determines which treatments can be paid for out of the public purse and which cannot be justified. Someone needs to set and hold that line.

We need better join-up between schools and youth justice services. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has an alternative educational plan for children involved with youth justice that parallels my noble friend Lord Nash’s amendment discussed in a previous group. We have already pushed identification and labelling to the point where they may be doing more harm than good to some children at the margins. Even though a label may feel reassuring, it can also do real harm if it lowers the child’s own expectations of what they can achieve, or their teacher’s expectations of them.

Neurodivergence is a term that has no clinical definition. In essence, it invites people who do not meet clinical criteria and thresholds to self-identify into services and funding streams intended for those who do meet those criteria. The definitions that float around for neurodivergence often sound like most young people’s adolescent experience. I suspect there are few of us who did not feel awkward, socially inept, and often just out of things in that period of life.

Good schools understand the adolescent experience and work to make a culture and framework in which teenagers have the structure and encouragement they need for most to succeed and emerge into adulthood without ever needing to be labelled as abnormal, and reserving specialist support for those who really need it.

The Government must take great care not to create incentives to segregate children within schools into SEND and non-SEND categories. With very few exceptions, children with rare physical needs need to learn the same things, and cognitive science shows us that they learn in the same way, though some may need the learning broken down into smaller steps with more repetition and reinforcement along the way. Most children with SEND will do the vast majority of their learning in their mainstream classrooms. Concentrating on getting that core classroom experience right for all children, with a strong, coherent, well-sequenced curriculum taught effectively, must come first, because doing this well minimises the number of children who come adrift, which is never a pleasant experience for the child, and it enables the expert SEND practitioners to concentrate on those who will always need their help. If, for example, we expect SEND funding to be spent on things that are specific to children with SEND, those mainstream classrooms will be neglected and starved of resource.

I look forward to the Government bringing forward their reform proposals for SEND and to proposing amendments in this vein in due course.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I very much support Amendment 502W from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. We need a much better standard and a much better quantity of data in this area. We need to start with some clear understanding and definitions of the terms we are using. There seems to have been a lot of drift and expansion in definitions, and we need to get back to something that is clear, commonly defined and commonly understood.

Then we really need to understand what works for these children. We need to track what we are doing and when and why it works. This is a really complex area, so we will not get the answer out of small studies and small amounts of data. We need to track every child who has been fingered as SEND, and then we will get enough data to start seeing some patterns. Perhaps we can add other categories, such as young carers and those who are in care, where there are known difficulties with their education that are not associated with SEND but which may well share some common characteristics. If we get better at data, we will really start to understand how to do better by the children and work the cost down at the same time, and that is important.

I am with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in the spirit of some of the other things that he is doing but I hope that, if this amendment ever came to be enacted, there would be alongside it a recognition of the interests of the other children in class.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, we have heard some thoughtful speeches on the issues facing pupils with special educational needs and disabilities in general and neurodivergence in particular. There is no doubt that this is a pressing issue for parents, pupils, staff and of course local authorities, whose budgets are being severely impacted by the costs associated with education, health and care plans, or EHCPs. As all noble Lords are aware, the Government have committed to publishing a new White Paper on SEND and have been working with an expert group ably led by Tom Rees, the CEO of Ormiston Academies Trust. That is an incredibly important task, and we on these Benches hope very much that the Government can show a positive way forward that addresses some of the problems that beset the current system. I think the plans for that report mean that Amendment 498 is not needed.

I understand the criticism of the Children and Families Act 2014, which introduced the current system. However, all who were involved with that legislation, including some noble Lords who have been in the House today, had the best interests of children with special educational needs and disabilities at the forefront of their minds. Whatever the Government propose, I hope that they will take the time to pilot it and avoid the problems of implementation and the unintended consequences that the current approach has found.

I hope also that we can move away from blanket terms such as “SEND” or “neurodivergent”, as they cover such an incredibly wide spectrum. With that in mind, I am cautious about some of the amendments in this group, including Amendment 491 in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, which would include mentors for all children with SEND, and the implications of Amendment 502S.

Given my earlier amendments on exclusions, it will not surprise the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that I do not agree with subsection (2) in his Amendment 502Q, which would make a presumption against permanent exclusion or fixed-term exclusion, for the reasons that I set out earlier. Similarly, I disagree with Amendment 502T in the noble Lord’s name, which would put a duty on schools to support reintegration for pupils who had been in custody without any balancing consideration about the impact on the other pupils in the classroom.

Again, I am not convinced that Amendment 502R, in the name of the noble Lord Carlile, or Amendment 502U, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, are needed. There is already extensive content in the early years and core initial teacher training curricula following updates undertaken by the previous Government in relation to these issues. When I talk to experts on inclusive teaching, they are clear that for pupils who are able to attend mainstream school, the same approaches of very high-quality teaching apply to them too. I agree absolutely with my noble friend Lady Spielman when she says that the core way that we all learn is much bigger than many of us appreciate.

The SEND review of 2022 put it very clearly that:

“High-quality teaching, differentiated for individual pupils, is the first step in responding to children who have or may have SEN”.


I think there is a big gap in our understanding of the impact of different interventions. Some commentators have called for the creation of something a bit like NICE, which we have for pharmaceuticals, for SEND interventions. I have been sent examples of the kinds of requirements that are put on schools for children with education, health and care plans. Those I saw ranged between nine and 44 separate requirements, many of them not based on any academic evidence of their effectiveness, but all of them creating a great workload for schools. That is something that I hope the Government are going to grip in this review and address.

I have a lot of sympathy for Amendment 502V, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, as I spent a lot of time trying to understand the flows of funding for EHCPs, as have many much more august organisations such as the IFS and the National Audit Office. It remains very difficult to get clarity on how the system works from a financial point of view. Given the sums of money involved, it surely would make sense to be able to do this.

Amendment 502W in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, builds on Amendment 502V and aims for cross-sector reporting. I hope that with the new single unique identifier some of that will become much more possible. It will certainly reveal some valuable data. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, the hour is late. I have my name on some of these amendments. I simply say that the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has highlighted that around 16% of children aged five to 16 now have a mental health disorder. CAMHS cannot cope with this. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, is certainly trying to plug that large hole.

I also remind the Committee that it has been estimated that in every class, on average, there is a child who has been bereaved of a parent or sibling. That is not trivial trauma; it is major. They need support and help, but they are often not getting it.

On collecting data, it is essential that we know what we are doing. However, we must use validated measures that have been properly evaluated, so that schools are measuring what people think they are measuring and they do not contain leading questions and so on. In addition, good-quality data allows a school to understand whether it is improving.

I declare my interest as having chaired the Science and Technology Committee’s sixth report on allergy, and I strongly underline all the comments made in it. During that inquiry, we heard about children being bullied by other children who put peanuts in their pockets, and about staff sometimes confusing anaphylaxis with panic attacks because they have not had training. It is a very simple measure to train staff and to make sure that they can access an EpiPen. With that, I hope that the Government will adopt the suggestions in these amendments.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I very much support the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the amendments she has put forward. I hope that the Government are thoroughly behind the National Education Nature Park, which is a great initiative from the Department for Education, and are looking for ways to push that out, maybe through the natural history GCSE. If the noble Baroness feels in need of a holiday, I recommend Japan as a place that has really got on top of how to get young citizens involved with nature; that may surprise noble Lords, in view of the urban character of Japan, but it is very good at that.

I also agree with my noble friend Lady Spielman that indirect measures are best. They are very much the underpinning of the Good Schools Guide: watching, observing and looking for strong structures and relationships—and, yes, someone to turn to when you do not know what to do, but an excess of mental health professionals is almost always the sign of a school in trouble.

When it comes to children, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle applies. By asking a child a question, you create the answer; you have to be really careful how you try to measure well-being, particularly in young children. Maybe the Dutch can teach us to do it, but I share the scepticism of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about much of what is going on in schools at the moment.

[Baroness Longfield (Lab)]

I shall add something on those points, although I do not want to drag this on. Clearly, this arouses a lot of emotions, but we are mixing a lot of things up. There are rooms full of evidence on how these effectively work, not least on the things that the noble Lord is putting forward. I do not think that schools are being asked to undertake surveys—it is about giving information to schools, which is a completely different aspect.

What we should all be talking about here is keeping children well, which means intervening when they need help; it does not mean taking them to clinics or overmedicalisation but it is about providing positive environments in which children can flourish. Also, it is not something that we are asking schools to take on; schools have had to take this on, because it comes through the door. We are talking about other professionals —health professionals, youth workers and others, who know about well-being—being able to work with schools to support those children. This is a win-win for everyone, and children and their families are the last ones who want to overmedicalise this and come up with what has been described as an industrialisation of a medical complex. That is not what anyone wants, and I do not think that it is there in any of the intentions that have been put forward.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Together, these two amendments embody a balanced approach. Amendment 426D asks us to learn from those local authorities that have built constructive, low-conflict relationships with families. Amendment 426E asks us to ensure that, in our zeal to regulate, we do not inflict greater harm on the very children we seek to protect. In an era when parental choice, diversity of provision and flexibility of learning are increasingly recognised as vital, we cannot afford a heavy-handed approach that alienates families and risks undermining children’s welfare. If we are serious about promoting the best interests of children, and if we truly believe in both the duty of the state and the rights of parents, I urge the Government to give these amendments serious consideration. They represent a constructive step forward in reconciling oversight with respect, accountability with compassion and enforcement with the paramount principle that no child should be harmed in the name of regulation. I beg to move.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I support the thrust of both my noble friend’s amendments. The Department for Education has an important role to play in helping local authorities drive up the quality of their relationship with and service for the home-educating community. The department can provide leadership on this by giving local authorities the feeling that the Government understand what they are doing, and that is the direction that the Government wish to take. That needs to be transmitted. Doing it in a way which celebrates the achievements of local authorities, and draws out the best of what is happening and makes a good example of that, is a motivating and constructive way to do this. I hope that the Government will take this direction. Local authority home-educating departments tend to be small, a bit isolated and stuck at the back end of safeguarding, and subject to all the pressures that come from that activity. The department has an important role to play in helping get things right.

On my noble friend’s second amendment, as the Government will know from my previous amendments, this is a direction I very much support. We should be looking at the child first and punishing the parent second. I listened to the Secretary of State’s speech at the launch of the Children’s Commissioner’s recent report, and that was very much the spirit that I heard then. I hope it will be reflected in the Government’s answer today.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, on Amendment 426D, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is right. It is important that good practice is shared between home educators and local authorities, and that the quality of home education is the best it can possibly be, and local authorities have a huge role to play in ensuring that happens. We already know—many noble Lords have mentioned particular examples—the sterling work local authorities have done with home educators.

I have a slight problem with the idea of the Secretary of State doing an annual report. We have seen dozens of other amendments decrying the fact that more information is required, but to put this annual report together would require doing exactly that—asking for all that form-filling and more information to come to the centre. There might be good practice where local authorities might wish to do a report—the amendment suggests an annual report—on the work that is going on with home educators and which could be shared with other home educators. To me, to put it in a formal way and say that the Secretary of State will produce an annual report is bureaucracy gone mad.

I am, in a sense, surprised by the second amendment. Schools are incredibly sensitive to the needs of children, particularly, as has been mentioned, those with neuro- diverse issues such as autism. They pull out all the stops to support those children. This amendment might create problems for the attendance policies of local authorities—policies that have been developed by the previous Government and this Government. We should recognise the work that goes on currently. Despite concerns, I can tell noble Lords that, in all the dealings I have had with schools, head teachers and teachers, they are more than sensitive to the needs of those pupils.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lucas]

427: Clause 36, page 79, line 16, at end insert—
“(c) institutions in England that cater for children placed with them for alternative provision by local authorities.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to bring unregistered alternative provision within the scope of routine oversight.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, in moving this amendment, I will also speak to my other amendments in this group.

This amendment concerns the practice of local authorities placing children in unregistered alternative provision. In my view, that should not happen. These children need quality provision, almost by definition. That they should be placed in unregistered provision by the state seems to me a complete dereliction of duty. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, has a rather more subtle and nuanced approach to this; I very much look forward to listening to it.

Amendment 427B suggests to the Minister that the Government should tighten up on, or give themselves additional scope to deal with, unregistered illegal schools that seek to disguise themselves by splitting into separate parts. This is merely a technical issue that the Government should address.

The other amendments in this group address the challenge that the Bill presents to the Haredi community. Obviously, the same principles that I am addressing here will apply to other religious communities where they provide substantial education for their children, but I am focusing on Haredi because I have been talking extensively to them—though I claim no authority to speak for them and no deep knowledge of their life. The Haredi are a venerable and peaceful community. They are contributors to commercial life and to the common good, though they keep themselves apart in many ways.

It is part of the British way, as I understand it, to respect religions. The Haredi community, as with other religious communities, has cultural values that differ from those of wider society, such as treating sexuality as a private, more intimate, subject and having both specific gender roles and a stronger community structure. However, in my experience of the way in which this country is organised, we allow space for these differences and do not attempt to eradicate them, although we set boundaries and should be confident in doing so. There have been religions where murder and child abuse have been common features, and we are quite right to say, “No, those are off-limits”, whatever our religious belief. Where we choose to set those boundaries will change over time and be a matter for debate, obviously, but we should be confident in setting those boundaries.

This Bill, as it is currently understood, places the Haredi system of yeshivas beyond the boundaries set in the Bill; yeshivas would be outlawed by it. The principal conflicts are around the requirement that yeshivas would have to register at schools and thus be bound by the curriculum and moral teachings that we expect of independent schools. This, the community feels, would be fundamentally in conflict with the Torah and would make it impossible for them to continue.

--- Later in debate ---

The debate on this group has concerned the regulation of full-time educational settings. The discussion has touched both on that principle and on the regulation of part-time settings, which would be inappropriate to regulate as if they were full-time. I hope that, reflecting on the discussion, and bearing in mind the considerable discussions and engagement that have already happened and the commitment to continue that engagement, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for that extensive reply. To pick up on some of the issues in the debate, I entirely understand what the noble Baronesses, Lady Morris of Yardley and Lady Blackstone, are saying. If children are not receiving their entitled education, we need to do something about that. That is part of the basic contract, as I understand it, between the state and any education system. The child has a right to an education, and if for whatever reason it is not being provided, that is not tolerable.

It is surely important for the Government to indicate to the Haredi community and others which way forward they favour. I hope I am not leaping too far ahead in my understanding of where the Government want to go, but are they preferring to say that they would like to see yeshivas registered as schools but they will make sure that the regulations that apply to yeshivas do not require them to violate their religious principles in the way that they teach? In other words, is the accommodation to be within that element of what we might normally require a school to provide by way of education, so that yeshivas are schools but are allowed to teach in a way which is consistent with the Torah and with their belief? That is one way forward.

The other way forward is that proposed by the right reverend Prelate and myself. I do not recognise the characterisation of the amendments in the Minister’s reply. We are specifically saying that settings should be exempt which do not provide education and which provide only religious instruction. In other words, the children’s education has to happen somewhere else; there has to be another space, another institution, which is providing that education. The religious space is not regarded as a school, because there is another space which is regarded as home education or a school. If there is somewhere else that is regarded as providing that child’s education, why should the yeshiva, or whatever, be regarded as a school too, because the function of education and school is being provided elsewhere?

First, I would like the Minister’s guidance on whether we are looking at a structure that aims to take yeshivas out of the definition of a school and makes it clear how a child’s education is being provided—whether that is the preferred way forward—or a structure that makes it possible for education consistent with the Torah to be provided within a regulated school. We owe this community a clear way forward, whereby they can focus on what they need to do and where they need to get to, and so those of us who support them can say, “You need to do this”, or “Let’s have a go at the Government because they are asking too much”, so we can have a dialogue on this issue. At the moment, we have a blank as to the Government’s intentions, and that really is not fair or satisfactory.

I really hope that the Government will find that answer. If the Minister wants to reply now, I shall understand, but otherwise I would be very grateful if she wrote to me giving a clear view of the Government’s preferred way forward. What is their opening offer? What would they like to see happen? The Bill as it stands just says, “Destroy these communities”. That is not the impression I get from what the Minister has said, so what is the other way forward? But for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 427 withdrawn.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

Following what the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, has just said, I want to speak to my Amendment 432 in this group and say that it is worth going that bit further than Amendment 434, which the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is proposing. We are very much looking in the same direction. We want this to be an effective system.

I also lend my support to Amendment 433. On the practicality of understanding, the nomenclature changes all the time. In getting to know a child, you find things out about them, and a decent school immediately wants to do something to provide for that child. It should not have to go through layers of bureaucracy before doing that. As my noble friend said, there should be an immediate reaction and dealing with the consequences of it afterwards.

It is important to deal with the consequences. As my noble friend will remember, there was an excellent school called Stanbridge Earls School, which died because it started to take on children whose SEN it did not really understand. It did not make proper provision. The whole school collapsed as a result. It is really important that these things are properly done, but the immediate reaction to looking after one child should not get in the way of that process.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, second time lucky. This is a very diverse group of amendments and there are one or two that certainly caught my eye. First, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on change of use; that seems to be something the Government could quite easily make a small change on—I do not know how they would do it, but I do not think they would make many enemies if they accommodated that.

Schools have to be inspected, and if you have a consistent system doing that across the board it will be helpful to all. The issue of independent schools which are substandard has been raised, and my noble friend has raised it on many occasions. We should know what we are doing: if something is defined as a school and it is functioning as a school—well, if it walks like duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Let us make sure that they are all inspected to a similar standard. You will have to have flexibility in approach and some knowledge, because if they are doing different jobs, especially in the independent sector, different approaches will be needed.

The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, made a very good point about special educational needs. It is incredibly easy to miss co-occurring conditions, and then the one that comes to the fore gets labelled, although it may not be what is causing most of the problems. I say that as a dyslexic who has worked in the field for a long time; co-occurrence is almost the norm. People with dyspraxia are very often co-occurring, and the dyslexia is spotted first because they check your spelling first. They do not realise that you cannot write because you do not have the muscle memory, and your arm is breaking down in the physical movement, but it is going through. Something that allows a change to be made is sensible and practical and will save the child a great deal of distress—and the school too, although make sure you are dealing with the child first. The inspection regime has to have some consistency across it; otherwise, we will have a variety of competing groups with competing standards chasing their tails and blaming each other.

I hope the Minister can give us some assurance that we will get to a more coherent position in the future, but it has to be one which accepts that you are dealing with a variety of different animals.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I turn to government Amendment 431. The Bill will allow the Secretary of State to suspend the registration of an independent school where children are at risk of harm. In some cases, this could include a requirement to stop boarding provision if that provision were in some way unsafe. The Government anticipate that this power will be used in extremely rare circumstances. The legislation is drafted to allow for flexibility to prioritise children’s welfare appropriately; for example, buildings where teaching takes place may be dangerous, but the boarding provision may be fine. Allowing boarding to continue would permit an orderly return home for those children. This minor amendment ensures that, in cases like these, it is not an offence to provide activity necessary to ensure the welfare of boarders, for example by allowing a school to continue to provide meals to children who are awaiting collection by their parents. This amendment removes any ambiguity about whether this would be allowed. I beg to move.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s answer on my amendment. Can she add to the many helpful things that she has said a commitment to drift the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and by me—as well as her own response —past the Chief Inspector of Schools to see whether he agrees with what she has said? From listening to him on several occasions, I have the impression that he might not.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Yes, we can do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, I speak strongly in defence of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and his Amendment 435, supported by my noble friends Lady Barran and Lady Spielman, which is long overdue. When I was the Minister in 2017, it was the first thing I tried to do, and I ran into a turf war between Ofsted and the department. It was as simple as that. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, asked why nothing has been done about it. It is because the bureaucrats were fighting each other.

The excuse then was that there were not the sufficient financial skills in Ofsted to look at the financial framework and capability of the MAT. I think that is nonsense; I think we could train a small number of Ofsted inspectors very quickly to understand the basic principles. For example, GAG pooling, which is one of the big advantages of multi-academy trusts when they essentially have one bank account. Only about a third on MATs do that. I am a huge fan of it, although I do not think my noble friend Lord Nash is. That is fine; that is part of the flexibility that the system has created, but the Ofsted inspector would need to understand that.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, made a point about it freeing up resources, and I completely agree. In the three years since I have been back as the chairman of my trust, I have had to sit through, I think, 12 interviews with Ofsted inspectors. Some 80% of what I tell them is exactly the same every single time: we have a joined-up curriculum across the whole trust and we have GAG pooling of all the money. That is all happening; the heart and brain is at the centre.

Therefore, having inspectors going round all these peripheral schools, where they will get the same answer time after time, is a tremendous waste of time. Go to the centre and, and if you are then worried about the messaging or the data you are inspecting, take a deeper dive into individual schools. If you did a single MAT inspection every three years, you would not have to go into every school.

I really cannot understand why there would not be huge support for this. Would it not be wonderful if we could bring the Committee together with the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and my noble friend Lady Barran, and agree an amendment that the Minister can work with? I promise noble Lords that everyone would benefit .

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My noble friend of course runs a good academy trust. Where things are not so good, you can get a lot of variability between the schools that append themselves to a trust. So this has to be judged on the occasion: you cannot just say you we will inspect the middle and not the outside; if the middle is not functioning well, the outside can really be very up and down.

I will add a couple of thoughts. First, I do not like the idea from the noble Lord, Lord Knight, of local authorities appointing. The way you gather good people together is by having a few excellent people in the middle who want other excellent people around them. Then you have Ofsted, or whoever, saying “Is this working?”. Local authorities just tend to appoint anybody, and those people do not turn up or know enough. Where I have seen local authorities appointing boards, it has been uniformly a disaster.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

I am not suggesting that local authorities appoint the boards; I am suggesting that local authorities appoint the members who, in effect, are the shareholders to whom the boards have to report on an annual basis at the annual general meeting.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

Yes, but we still want responsive, interested and active people there—and that is not what you get in my experience.

Secondly, I hope that inspection will look at the connection with parents, which can be hugely different across MATs. Some parents have a real connection with the school, and the school does that interface very well. With other, more distant MATs, anything that a parent is worried about just disappears into the fog and they never really know how to work with them. A good MAT will work well with parents, and Ofsted ought to look at that.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak in favour of Amendment 435, to which I have added my name. I am also happy to signify support for Amendment 436ZZB. I am less enthusiastic about Amendment 436ZZA, because it is prolix and bureaucratic —but, if the opportunity came, I would not vote against it.

What is noticeable and very welcome is the unanimity of view across the Committee on this issue, which is one of accountability. As my noble friend Lady Morris said, academies are a very important part of the school system. I have no connection with academies, unlike other noble Members who have spoken, other than as the parent of a child currently in year 10 of a school in a multi-academy trust in London. However, it is important that we have insight into what is happening within trusts to a much greater extent than we have at the moment, because there is a fundamental gap in the accountability system for school education. If schools and children’s services are inspected, why not multi-academy trusts? For that reason, we need transparency, consistency and fairness.

Ofsted needs to have the power to inspect trusts’ governance, financial stewardship, curriculum content and teacher development, and how the trust-level ethos affects children across their academies. Some tales of the way in which certain trusts operate do not look good, given some of the pressures under which children are placed. I believe that good MATs should and will welcome this.

I do not need to add further to what other noble Lords have said. This was a Labour manifesto commitment, as my noble friend Lord Knight said, so all I ask my noble friend the Minister is: if not now, when? I hope that the answer will be, “On Report”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

I want to come in on this group to inject a note of pragmatism into the discussion. First, I observe that the current freedom does not seem to have created significant problems in practice. To ask that classic question, “What is the problem that the clause in the Bill is trying to solve?”

Secondly, it is absolutely right that there are excellent programmes—the noble Lord, Lord Knight, described them—to encourage people to move from instructor and teaching assistant roles into qualified teacher status. Those are excellent—they should exist and people should be encouraged, of course—but the pragmatic point is to think about all the people who might choose to be teachers but choose instead, for example, to go off and be tutors, lavishing their skills and expertise in a very small subject on children whose parents can afford to pay. They are then lost to the state system because they simply will not go down that path.

For that reason, I support the amendments put forward by my noble friends Lady Barran and Lord Agnew—as well as the pragmatic amendment proposed at the start of this group by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich—as a way of making sure that the potential impact of this clause is not the opposite of what I am sure the Government intend. It is absolutely right to want both to upskill teachers and to make sure that as much teaching as possible happens with qualified teachers, but it would be desperately sad if many subjects and a lot of the potential school experience for millions of children were diluted for that purity of principle.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend. The current system does not create a lot of problems because most schools are teams. If you really need a particular skill, so you bring in someone who has that skill but lacks the other skills that one needs to teach well, the community rallies round and makes sure both that everyone works together and that the experience for the children is good. What I would like to see is not a system that says, “Go away, we don’t want you unless you have QTS first”, but one that welcomes people in and says, “Let’s bring you on”—the sort of thing that the noble Lord, Lord Knight, was describing. Such an attitude to bringing in the skills that we need seems to me to be the right one.

There are lots of people out there who could contribute their skills if it were made possible for them to do that in a way that works for them. As my noble friend said, there are a lot of young people who tutor and do it really well and who, therefore, develop an interest in the idea that they might be teachers although they want to get there in a way that suits them. There are lots of older people in their fifties and sixties who are coming to the end of their career and know that they are not going to go anywhere else. They may be consultants in IT and just do not want to sit down and write another computer system. They would love to get involved with young people and help to bring them on. You have to make it easy for them and find a way in for them. Creating something as inflexible as this Bill does seems destructive.

Data Protection and Digital Information Bill

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd April 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Lucas]

199: Clause 109, page 133, line 21, leave out “(2D)” and insert “(2F)”

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 199, I will also speak to the other amendments in this group. In so doing, I declare an interest as the principal proprietor of the Good Schools Guide; we make a lot of use of cookies on our website.

I am completely in favour of what the Government are doing in this part of the Bill as an attempt to reduce cookie consent pollution. It is a tiresome system that we all go through at the moment. The fact that it is tiresome means that, most of the time, we just click on it automatically rather than going through to the details. In a way, it is self-defeating. What the Government are trying to do will very much improve the quality of people’s response to cookies and will make them more aware, in situations where they are asked for consent, that this is important.

However—this will be the request at the end of my speech—between Committee and Report, I would really like to sit down with any noble Lords who are interested and are representatives of the relevant industry to discuss how we should deal with cookies that relate to supporting advertisement delivery. A lot of the web relies on advertisements for the revenue to support itself. By and large, for a lot of sites that you are not asked to pay but from which you get a lot of value, that value is supported by advertising. As a website, if you are going to charge someone for delivering advertising, you have to be able to prove that the advertisement has been delivered and to tell them something about the person to whom you are delivering it. In this process, you are not interested in having individual information. What you want is collective information; you want to know that you have delivered 24,000 copies of this advertisement and know what the audience looks like. You absolutely do not want to end up with personal information.

Within that envelope—absolutely excluding the sorts of cookies that chase you around the internet saying, “Do you want a deckchair?”, just because you bought one two days ago—this is a vital part of the way the internet works at the moment. In Amendments 199 to 201, I suggest ways in which the clauses could be adapted to make sure that that use of cookies—as I say, it does not involve the sharing of personal information; it very much involves collective information—is allowed to continue uninterrupted.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My apologies to the noble Lord but his microphone does not seem to be working. I wonder whether he could speak more clearly.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I am sorry. I assumed that my microphone was on.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

It is but I do not think it is working. I do not know whether anybody else is having problems with it.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

Okay. It does not quite reach me up here; I could sit down if that would be helpful.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

No, carry on.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I will try to line up with it better. Amendments 202 to 205 flag concerns with proposed new Regulation 6B, which sets out to remove cookie banners automatically when the technology is available. The concerns very much relate to that last phrase: “when the technology is available”. How will this work? How is it to be managed? There is only a thin layer of controls on the Government in the way that they will use these new powers; it is also unclear how this will affect consumers and advertisers. There could be some far-reaching effects here. We just do not know.

I am looking for, and hope the Government will agree to, wide consultation because, on something such as this, it is never true that everybody knows everything. You want to put the consultation out to a lot of different people with a lot of different experiences of how to use the net to make sure that what you are doing will have the sort of effects that you want. I want to see proper, thoroughgoing impact assessments, including of the impact on competition and on the economic health of participants in the net. I would like to see a real analysis of the readiness of the technology, not just an assumption that, because somebody likes it, it will work, but a real, critical look at whether the technology is actually up to what it is hoped it will do, and proper testing, so that, in giving the Government the carte blanche that they have asked for with these clauses, we do not end up letting ourselves in for a disaster.

As I said, most of all, I am looking for a meeting between now and Report, so that I can go through these things in detail, and we can really understand the Government’s position on these matters and, if necessary, discuss them further on Report. I beg to move.

[Viscount Chandos (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to which I am pleased to have added my name. I apologise for not being able to speak at Second Reading, but I understand from other Members of the Grand Committee that an occasional guest appearance and a different voice are welcome.

I declare an interest, as set out in the register, as a director of RSMB Ltd, a company specialising in the methodology of audience measurement, cross-media measurement and data integration. More fully, I am nominated and remunerated by the advertising group Havas, which owns the company jointly with Kantar Media.

As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, so clearly set out in his introduction, these simple and uncontroversial amendments would bring greater clarity and certainty to the key measurement of users, readers and audiences of digital websites and platforms. By including the measurement of aggregate audiences online in the list of cookies that would not require specific consent, these amendments would protect and enhance the interests of both consumers and businesses: consumers because, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, with the maintenance of advertising revenue funding, websites that provide news, entertainment and a wealth of other services would otherwise cost those consumers much more in subscriptions; and businesses, as through the quality of anonymised, aggregated data, they can build better offers to consumers and advertisers, as well as increase their financial resilience.

The Minister brings profound knowledge and understanding of this field, so he well knows how important the digital advertising market is and how innovative and respected UK companies are in the global industry. That applies not only to the websites, platforms and advertisers but to the research, quality audit and measurement companies specialising in this area. These amendments would support this growing and productive high-tech data, research and measurement sector in reinforcing its world-leading position.

As in so many industries and sectors of the economy, long-term stability is vital to rapidly evolving digital markets. Including these amendments in the Bill, rather than relying on secondary legislation and regulation to flesh out details in the future, will enhance that stability.

Likewise, the amendments relating to the implementation of centralised opt-out controls are intended also to promote that long-term stability, as well bringing enhanced transparency and scrutiny. The interests of consumers and businesses are not in conflict with each other in relation to audience measurement and data quality. They are constructively interactive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

I take the noble Lord’s point. We are working with industry and will continue to do so. For the benefit of the Committee, we are, as I said, happy to write and explain the points of view, including those from Data: A New Direction. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, power ultimately lies with Parliament via the affirmative resolution procedure for the Secretary of State power.

I will go back to the amendments we were discussing. This regulation applies to complex and technical markets. The very reason we have taken a delegated power is so that the new exemptions can be carefully created in consultation with all affected stakeholders. As I explained, the Bill includes a requirement to consult the Information Commissioner, the Competition and Markets Authority and any other relevant stakeholders, which would include trade associations and consumers or web users.

Amendment 201 would widen the application of the “strictly necessary” exemption. Currently, it applies only to those purposes essential to provide the service requested by the user. Amendment 201 would extend this exemption so that it applies to the purposes considered essential to the website owner. We do not think this would be desirable, as it would reduce a user’s control over their privacy in a way that they might not expect.

For the reasons I have set out—and once again reaffirming the commitment to write to noble Lords on how the weighting was worked out—I hope my noble friend and the noble Baroness will not press their amendments.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

Might I also hope for the meeting that I referred to?

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend makes a good point. I can promise all Members that there will be thematic meetings between Committee and Report.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that assurance from my noble friend.

On the first amendments, clearly, we are dealing with something that is quite tricky and technical. My noble friend sees these amendments in a different light to me. It is possible that my drafting may be imperfect; that has never happened before, of course, but there is always a first time. Therefore, I seek an opportunity to look at this issue in detail. It is absolutely not my objective to engage the objections; this is something where my noble friend’s objections are valid. My amendment is not intended in any way to allow tracking or profiling. If I am wording things imperfectly or imagining something that just cannot be achieved in practice, the best way to deal with these matters would be to hammer them out in a technical discussion, not in Committee. I would happily look to an opportunity to do that between Committee and Report.

When it comes to new Regulation 6B and its ramifications, as the debate has gone on, I have found myself favouring more and more the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. This is an uncontrolled bit of power that we are looking to give the Government, with some serious implications. It should not be done. We should wait until the technology is available and then do something when we can really take our time to look at the options. Again, this is something that we will have a chance to talk through.

It is really important that, in doing what seems to be convenient—as my noble friend put it, it is about getting rid of an irritation and making the whole process of giving permission much more effective; I am absolutely with him on that—we make sure that we are not letting ourselves in for some greater dangers. I personally want to make sure of that. The oldies among us—most of us, I suspect—will remember when Google said, “Don’t be evil”. I wish that it had kept to that.

For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 199 withdrawn.

Apprenticeships

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I must declare an interest because I am running a social enterprise in this patch, the Good Careers Guide, which you can bing if you do not want to google. We have been having a wonderful time with companies. There is such a spirit of collaboration abroad—with them, with their organisations and with schools organisations, too—and there is a real determination to get together and solve the problems of how kids comprehend careers, of how businesses get on with schools and of how apprenticeships become valued as a decent alternative to academic education. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Best, that the construction industry is as enthusiastic as any other, and I shall look forward to his conference and hope that we may end up as part of it.

To return to the subject in hand, which is on how to increase the number and quality of apprenticeships for 16 to 18 year-olds, I think the answers are about information, appreciation and support. It is very hard within the context of a school to find that out what 16-to-18 apprenticeships are out there. We need a place where people can go to find out—but not, as the Deputy Prime Minister said, a UCAS, which is a horrible, inward-facing and unco-operative organisation. What we need is something that is facing outward and that sees its business as running an API, not a fortress, so that all sorts of institutions that have contacts with young people can easily get at the information on apprenticeships which they need to advise them. I think that would be a great way forward and I very much hope, if Mr Clegg has anything to do with it, that is the direction that he eventually takes.

Second is appreciation. There is a general feeling that apprenticeships are of mixed quality. That is not good. That is how we came into the business of the Good Careers Guide, taking the genetics of the Good Schools Guide and seeing what we could do for apprenticeships. It is proving immensely popular with companies, I am delighted to say. They really see the need to be seen as quality providers. It is important to parents particularly, and to others who are advising young people, that they understand where an apprenticeship leads to. How will it be rated by other employers once it is completed? Where will it lead to in terms of a career? The progression is immensely important, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, commented.

In that context, it is important to say to the Government that they are on the wrong track when they say that,

“once the reformed GCSEs are implemented, all apprentices will use GCSEs … to meet the English and maths requirements”.

What is important is context. If you are in an apprenticeship, what is motivating you is the context. The mathematics and English you use must fit in with that context. English and maths GCSEs are designed to move people on to A-levels; they are not designed for the whole variety of employments and apprenticeships that are out there. What is important is that the English and maths that one learns in an apprenticeship is part of a progression which leads—as, again, the noble Lord, Lord Young, said—to recognised professional qualifications. The English and maths should be sufficient for that, but there should be no barriers on the progression of apprentices. They should be able to move on to degrees and what they have achieved as an apprentice should be recognised as sufficient for that. I hope that the NHS will wake up to the idea that you can start as an apprentice and end up as a nurse, which does not seem too hard to ask when you can start with Barclays as a NEET who has just come from jail and end up as a bank manager. There are companies out there which take progression seriously, and it is time that our public sector did so, too. We must pay apprentices properly; they should not be seen as a source of cheap labour but should receive proper remuneration.

We should also concentrate on support. Most of our employment comes from small and medium-sized enterprises, but it is difficult for them to take on the bureaucracy and the responsibility of an apprenticeship. The big companies can manage it—they have big HR departments, which can do what is required. We need to build up for smaller companies a structure of training providers which not only provide the training but do the pastoral care, too, looking after every aspect of the apprentice’s needs. The SME will then be able to concentrate on giving them a job and will not be asked to do things which go beyond its capacity. That is happening: PricewaterhouseCoopers organises it for the smaller companies and the financial industry; several of the sector skills councils have similar schemes; and QA, which is one of the training providers, is in that business. We are beginning to see that happening, and it needs to happen much more widely.

To quote one of the senior executives of a company whose training provision we were reviewing: “Apprentices are a total delight. They are quickly very productive, excited, eager, and bring new life to the business”. If tired old people like us can be cheered up by taking on apprentices, let us do more of that.

25th Anniversary of the World Wide Web

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I confess an interest in that I earn most of my income from the web and that the social enterprise I am promoting at the moment, which is called The Good Careers Guide, depends for its potential success entirely on web technologies, so I am perforce an optimist for the web but, I hope, a rational one.

As the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, said, we are in the middle of an unprecedented upheaval, but we probably do not yet realise the size of its consequences. I am optimistic that this will lead to a far better world than we have at the moment, but we will have to work hard to make sure that it does. We in Parliament have a very important role to play in that, acting in the interests of citizens and the country to tame the forces which might otherwise overwhelm us.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, talked about the importance of education and of including all our citizens in the benefits of the internet. Doubtless, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, will also speak about that. I entirely agree with that.

I hope, too, that we will take a stand against those parts of the internet which have become, or seem to be becoming, more powerful than states. We should stand beside Sherlock Holmes in confronting our digital Charles Augustus Magnussens and the amoral, all-knowing Amazon, Google, Facebook and others. I think we should stop short of Sherlock Holmes’s solution of actually shooting them, but we should stand up to them. We should not allow them to use legal tax avoidance to destroy our own domestic companies which cannot take advantage of the routes that the international companies do.

We also have to take a strong look at ownership. I own my library, which was my parents’ library and my grandparents’ library and beyond that, but my children will have no library. All they are being offered at the moment is the opportunity to rent, and they will have nothing to give to their children. That is the other side of the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Why I do not approve of piracy is because the owners of copyright are trying to deprive us of the right of ownership once we have paid for it. We need something along the lines of an information right—something to give us as citizens the right over our own information against the all-powerful organisations which have made themselves a necessary part of life and demand all our information and all power over it if we are to use their services.

Politics and politicians have a very important part to play in the future of the internet. I very much hope that the Government will face up to that.