Schools: Food Nutrition Standards

Lord Mawhinney Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

I think I can agree that were it to be introduced, it would not be mandatory.

[Lord Mawhinney (Con)]

My Lords, in his first response my noble friend talked about new guidelines coming in last year that reduced the amounts of fat, salt and sugar in school diets. Could he tell the House what percentage reductions occurred in each of those three categories?

[Lord Nash]

I cannot. I am happy to write to the noble Lord, but I believe that the amount of sugar cannot be more than 5%. I will write with details.

Schools: Substance Abuse Education

Lord Mawhinney Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

My noble friend makes a very good point. Attendance at school is, as I say, at an all-time high. However, this is one of the focuses of the troubled families programme, which has been so successful.

[Lord Mawhinney (Con)]

My Lords, bearing in mind my noble friend’s original Answer, does he have any concern that talking about “recreational drugs” might have the effect of undermining the Government’s very strong desire to deal with substance abuse?

[Lord Nash]

I agree with my noble friend—it is very unfortunate terminology—but I do not think that our determination is any different.

Schools: Pupil Premium

Lord Mawhinney Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, the pupil premium, as the noble Lord knows, is intended for pupils from the age of reception up to year 11. I am aware of the issues around the education maintenance allowance and the point that underlies the noble Lord’s question. The enhanced discretionary fund, which will be targeted on those who most need the help, will, I hope, deal with some of that. For 16 to 18 year-olds, deprivation factors are already in the funding formula which will help to address some of the same issues.

[Lord Mawhinney]

My Lords, what do the Government intend to do with those head teachers whose reports to parents indicate that the money was not used for the premium?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

As usual, my noble friend is a few steps ahead of me. We will need to address how we police that, and to reflect on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, as well. We are not yet even at the point of announcing the premium so I am afraid that I cannot give my noble friend a completely satisfactory answer about what we will do in a year’s time.

Children: Care

Lord Mawhinney Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, I think that the Act makes clear that the priority in making those decisions is that a child should stay with the family or with a suitable family member. No one wants to get into the situation whereby there is a presumption that a child should be taken from the family into care. Everyone would want the child to remain with the family or a member of the family as long as the child is not at risk.

[Lord Mawhinney]

My Lords, my noble friend said that he would reflect on the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree. Will he also reflect on the fact that the experience of Members of Parliament is that a lot of the distress caused in this area is due to lack of adequate and comprehensive communication between the local authority and the parents? Perhaps he might see whether, arising out of his reflection, some guidance would be helpful.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I am happy to take those points back and I hope that the Munro review, which is looking into this whole area much more broadly, will also come forward with helpful suggestions for all of us in this difficult area to make sure that we get the balance right.