Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts(6 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley
Leave out from “disagreement,” to end and insert “do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 38J to 38P, and do propose Amendments 38Q to 38U in lieu—
“Protection of children from harmful social media services and features
(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, by regulations made by statutory instrument, make provision for the purpose of protecting the wellbeing of children in relation to regulated user-to-user services likely to be accessed by children in the United Kingdom.
(2) Regulations under this section must, in particular, make provision requiring providers of such services—
(a) to assess and specify a minimum age of access for the service, or for specified features or functionalities of the service, as part of a children’s risk assessment carried out in accordance with provisions of the Online Safety Act 2023, with the expected minimum age of access for social networking services being 16 years;
(b) to use highly-effective age assurance measures to prevent access by children below the applicable minimum age;
(c) where a user is identified as being under the age of 16, to apply proportionate measures designed to—
(i) limit the supply of addictive design features and design features that are inappropriate for children, and
(ii) prevent access to content that is harmful to children;
(d) to display to users under the age of 16 clear, accessible and age-appropriate health and wellbeing warnings about the risks associated with prolonged or excessive use of the service;
(e) to keep under review the impact of the service’s design, functionalities, algorithms and business practices on the mental health and psychological wellbeing of children.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(c), “addictive design features and design features that are inappropriate for children” include, in particular—
(a) infinite scrolling content feeds,
(b) auto-play of sequential video or audio content,
(c) algorithmic recommendation systems designed to maximise continuous user engagement,
(d) sycophantic or manipulative features, or features that are likely to make a child understand the technology as human,
(e) push notifications and alerts, including at night and during the school day,
(f) the demand for unnecessary data in exchange for services.
(4) Regulations under this section must require OFCOM to publish guidance about—
(a) the criteria for determining an appropriate minimum age of access;
(b) the evidential requirements for children’s risk assessments relating to minimum age determinations;
(c) the identification and regulation of addictive design features in relation to children; and
(d) the form and content of health and wellbeing warnings.
(5) In making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Chief Medical Officers of the United Kingdom,
(b) OFCOM,
(c) the Information Commissioner, and
(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(6) Regulations under this section shall be treated as imposing enforceable requirements for the purposes of Part 7 of the Online Safety Act 2023.
(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(8) In this section—
“child” means a person under the age of 16;
“content that is harmful to children” has the same meaning as in the Online Safety Act 2023;
“regulated user-to-user service” has the same meaning as in that Act; “social networking service” means an online service that—
(a) allows users to create profiles and interact publicly or privately with other users, and
(b) facilitates the sharing of user-generated content, including text, images or videos, with a wider audience.”
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I personally welcome the noble Baroness back to her place after a short period of illness and thank her for taking the time last week to engage with us to better understand where we are coming from and give us the opportunity to understand where she is coming from. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd, for her engagement over the Easter period. Both engagements have been very helpful for us.
My reason for tabling this group of amendments is that we have some concerns around the Henry VIII powers that the Government are seeking. The noble Lord, Lord Nash, may not hold as strong a view as I do on the Henry VIII powers, but noble Lords across this House have issues whenever a Government want to take on lots of powers, and I note that the noble Lord proposes a sunset clause. I have concerns about how the Government intend to make changes once the consultation happens. My view is always that, if these are powers that are required for a set period, so be it; however, I still have concerns around what may happen in future if another Government come in and want to use them. I am sympathetic to what the noble Lord, Lord Nash, has proposed but, through my amendments, we hope that the Government may take the opportunity to support our quest and bring in their own primary legislation.
There is also the issue of whether we have a ban or regulate addictive features. We have always been clear in the amendments we have proposed previously that we did not favour an outright ban for under-16s, but wanted an age rating so that the duty fell upon the social media providers to deal with those features that young people get addicted to, such as constantly scrolling and so on. That is where we stand, and I am sure many Members of your Lordships’ House, if they were able to vote on our amendment, might well be there as well. That is what we need, rather than an outright ban.
I get that your Lordships’ House has previously voted for the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, to make sure that this issue stays live. It will be interesting to see what happens later today when some of those amendments will no doubt be proposed.
Secondly, as the Minister mentioned, we have issues around the collection of data and GDPR, particularly around the age of consent. Currently it is 13 and we want it to be 16. I hope the Government address that.
On enforcement and additional harms, while empowering Ofcom on the issue of guidance on addictive features, it will also introduce specific requirements for platforms used to access services to mitigate the risks of them being used to create and distribute child sexual abuse materials. This includes mandating human moderators and co-operating for law enforcement. In all our efforts, we have tried to do the best for our young people. We have tried to help and assist the Government and nudge them in the right direction, and that is what we will endeavour to do today.
Ultimately, from speaking to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and others in your Lordships’ House, I do not think we are too far away from where we should be. It is just a matter of the speed and pace of implementation. I note that the Government keep saying, “It will come out after our consultation”, but we have been debating this since last year. I will put on record again—I have said it in meetings before—that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, was the first to have flagged this, to his credit. To be honest, I do not care which political party someone belongs to if they are here to safeguard our young people: credit where credit is due. We have tried to work across parties, with the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and with the Cross Benches to ensure that we get to where we are.
I will briefly move to smartphones in schools, rather than mobile phones, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, because we have always been clear that it is with smartphones that we have a problem. At the meetings that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and others have been to, parents and head teachers have said that the issue of concern is with smartphones, social media, WhatsApp groups and others.
We have noted some parents’ concerns around being able to access or get in touch with their children and young people, particularly in rural areas. That is why we often talk about being able to have the more old-fashioned phones that many of us had 20 years ago, which basically allowed you to make phone calls and not much else. Therefore, we have been clear that it is smartphones that are the issue for us.
I know that my noble friend Lord Addington was very clear about supporting what he often refers to as the “devices” that enable people who need extra support in school and how to deal with that, but that issue clearly fell in your Lordships’ House when we tried to propose it. I take reassurance from the Minister’s commitment about enhancing that guidance, because head teachers have been looking for that. They have been saying that there is a small but very vocal group of parents who, whenever we bring in a policy like this, stop them managing those schools and supporting the teaching of young people, as they constantly have to fend off those parents.
In that sense, the Government are heading in the right direction. They might not be quite where some of us want them to be, but I thank the Minister for that and look forward to hearing other contributions from your Lordships’ House.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, I too welcome the Minister back to her place, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, for his remarks. I will speak to my Motion A2. For anyone who has studied them, the verdicts in the two US cases are clearly game-changers. The evidence from the social media companies themselves is damning. I have a treasure-trove of these documents, if any noble Lord would like them.
Immediately following these cases, the Prime Minister made some very strong statements about protecting children from the harm of social media, and the right honourable Liz Kendall spoke only yesterday about the importance of highly effective age verification to ensure that children cannot access the harmful features of social media. This is exactly what my proposal does. I listened very carefully to what she said yesterday and, if you can get a fag paper between us, it is a pretty thin one indeed—so I have decided to take the Prime Minister at his word and, instead of batting my amendment back again, to lay an amendment to the Government’s amendments to the effect that they must, rather than just may, raise the age for access to those harmful social media sites to 16 within 12 months. Those sites would be chosen very selectively and, I am sure, would be very few in number—definitely not an outright or blanket ban—and this would be stated in the Bill. I have also proposed in the amendment a sunset clause of two years on the Henry VIII element of the powers that the Government are proposing to take.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Yes, I will undertake to do that. I think it is interesting that that type of question is exactly the reason why the use of what will become statutory guidance is a more appropriate way of dealing with the nuances of this issue than the type of legislative ban on the face of the Bill that some people are arguing for. Because of that flexibility, I will undertake to do that.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
I thank the Minister for her comments and response to the points raised. I thank all noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, for setting out clearly, alongside myself, our position on social media. I welcome the comments on having better clarity on the smartphones issue. I am not minded to test the opinion of the House on this occasion.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 41D in lieu of Amendment 41B—
“551ZB School uniforms: review of limits on branded items
(1) The Secretary of State must review the effectiveness of measures intended to limit the cost to parents of branded items of school uniform required by the appropriate authority of a relevant school in England for use during a school year.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the coming into force of section 551ZA, lay the review under subsection (1) before Parliament.””
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the time she gave last week. It enabled me to better understand where she and the Government are coming from and gave me the opportunity to highlight why I think school uniforms and their cost are important, hence my amendment. As your Lordships may recall, I benefited from a policy that David Blunkett—the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett—brought in. When my father lost his job in the steel industry in Sheffield, I was on free school meals. We were able to go to the local education authority and get some clothing for school. That lived experience is driving me to try to do the best for young people in Sheffield and across the country.
I absolutely do not doubt that the Government want to reduce the cost of school uniforms. Their measure is to reduce the number of items required, while mine asked for a cap on the cost. As noble Lords may have seen from the amendments we have now tabled, I have stopped asking for that, but I am saying to the Government that, at some point, 12 months from implementation, when they have that review, I hope they will be willing to at least re-look at the possibilities of a cap.
More important for me, going back to that lived experience, I want to keep pushing the Government to say how they will provide help and support. They are going to limit the cost of school uniforms by potentially limiting the numbers, but there is still a cost involved. I want the Government, as and when they can—once the economy picks up, I hope—to support every child who is on free school meals. I hope the Minister can comment on that when she gets up to respond.
On the amendments on the PAN, I will read out information I got this morning from the Confederation of School Trusts. It said: “We are grateful to the Government for the work they have done to bring forward this amendment, which goes some way towards addressing our concerns about the potential impact of this policy on the quality of educational provision in the area. We think the amendments need to go further. Specifically, we believe that schools adjudicators should be under a legal duty to consider”—and this is in bold—“other ways of achieving effective and efficient provision in the area if the local authority is seeking to reduce the PAN for high-performing schools. In order to make a good decision, the school adjudicator should therefore be required in law to consult the relevant DfE regional directors”.
Therefore, we still have concerns, given that the CST has been in touch with us and our colleagues down the Corridor to ask the Government to go further. I hope that, when the Minister gets up, she can give us the confidence that the CST wants.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I acknowledge the work of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, in relation to school uniform and the focus that he has brought to this in the later stages of the Bill.
I will speak to my Motion C1. I recognise that the Government have moved on prioritising quality and parental preference—and it sounds as though they are going to move a bit further, if I followed what the Minister just said. However, we do not believe that the amendment as drafted resolves the issue at the heart of this. On this side of the House, we of course recognise the pressure on schools and local authorities from falling rolls in certain parts of the country. Our concern is that there is a fundamental conflict of interest for local authorities. The easiest thing for them to do is cut the published admission numbers of the larger and more popular schools, particularly if those schools are academies, as a way of addressing that problem.
The Minister described my amendment as a blanket exemption. There are an awful lot of blankets in the Chamber this afternoon, and I do not see how one could interpret it as such. My amendment covers both academies and maintained schools, and its starting point is that consideration must be given to effective and efficient provision in an area. I am not entirely clear why that is a blanket exemption. It would require the school adjudicator to consider the shape of local provision and to explicitly consider mergers and closures.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
I thank the Minister for her response to the issue of the cost of school uniforms in particular. I am partly reassured by her commitment. I wish her and her Government well in trying to help with dealing with the cost of school uniforms. She can rest assured that it is not a topic that I will let go of in the next 12 months. I will be constantly snapping at her heels to make sure that the commitments she has given from the Dispatch Box are fulfilled. With that, I am not minded to test the opinion of the House.
Schoolchildren: Swimming
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts(6 days, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We agree that it is a vital skill, not a luxury, which is why it and water safety are key parts of the national curriculum at key stages 1 and 2. We are also aware that factors including pressures around energy costs and ageing facilities may impact the future provision of sports facilities, including swimming pools. That is why, in June last year, the Government committed £400 million to transform sports facilities, including public leisure, across the whole of the UK over the next four years.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I return to the data and, in particular, swimming attainment by region and socio-economic background. I think many in your Lordships’ House fear that there is a huge disparity. If there is, what plans do His Majesty’s Government have to close that gap in regional variances? If the Minister has the data, it would be really useful. If she does not, will she write to us?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that there is a disparity between ethnic groups, in particular, and between more and less disadvantaged children, which is why this is a national entitlement through the national curriculum. Clearly, we need to do more to ensure that every child is getting opportunities, such as, for example, the £300,000 per year to a consortium led by the Youth Sports Trust to deliver Inclusion 2028, which is a programme that upskills teachers to deliver high-quality, inclusive PE school sport and physical activity, including swimming, to pupils with SEND.
Masculinity and Misogyny in Schools
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am sure it is the case that social media has had an impact here. We know the influence that those who choose to use it to express toxic masculinity and misogyny can have. That is why we need to support schools, as we are doing through increased investment in resources to help teachers and students to tackle misogyny. It is why the consultation on social media use among young people that the Government have launched is so important, and why we have committed to act on its conclusions.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, to pick up on the point about parents that the Minister raised, how do the Government intend to engage with not only parents but communities, particularly to deal with the negative cultural influences on the perception of women among some of our young people? It is not just in schools that this issue is happening; often it occurs at weekends and in our city centres. How can we engage with communities, as well as parents?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point. This needs to be tackled outside school, as well as inside. That is why the DfE has worked jointly with DSIT to design, test and launch a website for parents of all-age children to help them keep their children safe online. We are currently developing misogyny-specific content for that site that will give parents information and tools to spot warning signs and hold open conversations, and will direct them to further support that will link with the Home Office’s Enough campaign, about which we will be saying more soon.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I shall speak also to Motions B, K and K1. In this group we will be debating amendments made in this House relating to child protection plans, multi-agency child protection teams and local authority consent for children not in school. For each, I will set out the rationale for why the Government cannot accept these amendments.
I will speak first to Motion A relating to Amendment 2, originally tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, regarding decisions to end child protection plans for under-fives when care proceedings are initiated or a care or supervision order is granted. When care proceedings begin, the child protection plan should not automatically be discharged. Statutory guidance is clear that a multi-agency meeting should take place to make this decision.
The Ofsted inspection framework reflects this statutory guidance and includes a focus on child protection. However, I note the noble Baroness’s concerns about children losing support at key transition points, potentially making them more vulnerable. This is why we will strengthen statutory guidance to make sure that the reason for the decision and any ongoing support is recorded.
We expect expert practitioners in multi-agency child protection teams to make decisions about plans ending. These teams bring fresh child protection expertise to concerns and will know the circumstances of the child well, so they are best placed to make these important decisions. While senior and experienced directors of children’s services should get involved only when needed, this is already provided for in the statutory framework.
Motion B relates to Amendment 5, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, requiring that the Secretary of State delay an evaluation of the families first for children pathfinder in Parliament before the multi-agency child protection team measures come into force.
Effective multi-agency child protection practice, which prevents tragedies and saves lives, needs to happen now. Delay is unacceptable. The Government will set out implementation plans covering the next phase of children’s social care reform following Royal Assent, including information about the planned pathfinder evaluation.
This summer, we expect to publish interim findings that are informing national rollout. Clause 3 also includes powers to make regulations about the functions of multi-agency child protection teams. The regulations will be subject to consultation and parliamentary scrutiny and will reflect learning from the pathfinders and national reform rollout. Regulations are not expected to come into effect until 2027, but the system is rightly changing now and we must not hinder this.
I turn finally to Motion K, relating to Amendment 44, and Motion K1, relating to Amendment 44B in lieu, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. The amendment in lieu would require parents to obtain permission from their local authority before withdrawing their child from school for home education if their child is currently, or has ever been, the subject of care or supervision order proceedings, unless the child has since been adopted. We share the noble Baroness’s commitment to ensuring that every child is safe. However, we remain unconvinced about extending the consent requirement further. Children who are the subject of such proceedings would almost always fall within existing protections, either through a child protection plan triggering the Government’s proposed consent measure or as a looked-after child whose education is already determined by the local authority through their care plan.
We recognise concerns about children previously subject to proceedings potentially being vulnerable. That is why we have extended the consent requirement to children who have been on a child protection plan in the last five years and extended the school attendance order power to these children who are already being home educated. This approach maintains the high threshold for consent to child protection action, recognises that children may be vulnerable if they are withdrawn from school within five years after a plan ends, and balances this with the reality that families can and do change.
On Report, the noble Baroness referenced the review into the tragic death of Sara Sharif. We have already amended the Bill to respond directly to its recommendations. We will pilot mandatory meetings before any child in a pilot area can be removed from school for home education, and the new power for local authorities to request to visit home-educated children in their homes will benefit the children that the noble Baroness is most concerned about. Importantly, our wider children’s social care measures also strengthen information sharing, improve early preventive support, create new multi-agency child protection teams and strengthen the role of education and childcare settings in local safeguarding arrangements. It is for these reasons that the Government disagree with these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to this group of amendments. I thank the Minister in her absence for the meetings we have had away from your Lordships’ Chamber. Clearly, protecting our young people is close to all our hearts and is something that we will keep a watching brief on. We have looked at the Government’s proposals. Early on, when I arrived at your Lordships’ House, I worked with the Children’s Commissioner and a briefing was sent to all noble Lords in June last year about something I was trying to bring forward on Report to try to make young people’s lives better. On that occasion, I failed to convince noble Lords on both the main two Benches and, as we live in a democracy, I chose not to pursue that.
I wish the Government well with their intentions. Clearly, as the opposition here—the smaller opposition—our duty will be to continue to hold the Government to account on the reassurances they have given us in briefings and, more importantly, on what they have written to us both from your Lordships’ House and the other place. These Benches are not minded to oppose what the Government are proposing, but we are putting them on notice that we will continue to watch the progress and we wish this Bill well.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Motion K1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I thank the Bill team and the Minister for our very useful meeting yesterday, and, as ever, I must declare my interest as a state school teacher.
When we talked to the Bill team yesterday, I thought that they almost seemed to use the language of this amendment. As we have heard, the Sara Sharif review says that the overview is at fault, not the system; but this amendment seems the very way of tightening oversight without, as has been mentioned, penalising adoptive parents and children, where the concern was about a previous iteration of their life. This seems to be the crux of the amendment. The Minister actually said the Bill says that “almost all” children fall within the Bill. I think this tightens it up, so hopefully all children will fall within the purview of this Bill.
Moreover, it seems to me that, in the Bill as it stands, the local authority could not require a child who left local authority care and returned to their family, say, three years ago, to attend school, while they could for a child who came off child protection three years ago. I do not understand that at all. At the moment, I am not clear about the Bill as it stands. I think Motion K1 makes it much clearer, and I implore the Government to accept this.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion H, I shall also speak to Motions H1, J, L, L1 and M. In this group, we are debating amendments relating to school uniforms, published admission numbers and allergies. For each, I will set out the clear rationale as to why the Government cannot accept these amendments.
I turn first to Motions H and J, relating to Amendments 41 and 42, and Motion H1, relating to an amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley. The amendment in lieu, Amendment 41B, seeks to require a review of the effectiveness of the limit on branded items of school uniform, with particular reference to introducing a monetary cap. I thank the noble Lord again for raising the important issue of uniform costs. We will, of course, monitor the effectiveness of the limit as we implement it.
However, our manifesto commitment is clear: to reduce the cost of uniforms by limiting the number of branded items that schools can require. This approach is overwhelmingly backed by parents, with the Children’s Society finding that 78% agree with such a limit. We believe that a cost cap would not create the same level of parental savings as a numeric limit. It is complex and burdensome for government and schools, and it risks appearing protective, while failing to constrain actual costs. It creates a financial target and could encourage schools to increase the number or price of their branded items. It risks strengthening supply and monopolies, reducing parental freedom and increasing costs. A numeric limit opens the market, giving parents greater choice and affordability.
A cost cap would entail unnecessary regulatory complexity and assumptions about retail pricing for size variations, promotions and parents’ purchasing of spare or replacement items. Enforcement would create significant burdens for schools, forcing annual reviews of uniform policies and prices, and drawing them into disputes between parents and retailers about prices and compliance. A numeric limit is simple, transparent and easily enforceable, and statutory guidance can make it clear that high-cost items should be avoided.
I turn to Motion L, relating to Amendment 102, and Motion L1, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which insists on this amendment. The amendment seeks to limit the circumstances in which the adjudicator can specify a lower published admission number, or PAN, following an upheld objection. We have committed to update the statutory School Admissions Code to ensure that school quality and parental choice are paramount in any decision on a PAN. We have set out more detail on our planned approach in a paper deposited in the House of Lords Library yesterday, including plans for new statutory principles that will ensure that the availability of high-quality school places is central to decision-making, and that requiring high-performing schools to reduce places should be a last resort.
We already expect schools and local authorities to co-operate to ensure that admission numbers give parents a choice of high-quality local school places close to home. However, this amendment would impose inappropriate restrictions on the scope of the adjudicator’s powers to deal with those instances where this does not happen. An individual school’s decisions can impact school quality and choice across an area, especially at a time of declining pupil numbers. This can impact both urban and rural communities. This measure will ensure that, as a last resort, an independent decision can be taken, with choice and quality for all children at its centre.
I turn finally to Motion M, relating to Amendment 105, which was tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, and seeks to introduce mandatory allergy safety provisions for all schools. The Government agree with Members campaigning for improved allergy safety in schools. I am therefore pleased to confirm that we have tabled our own amendment in lieu to place allergy safety on a statutory footing. It is intended to enshrine Benedict’s law in primary legislation, securing robust allergy safety measures.
I pay particular tribute to the tireless efforts of Helen Blythe, in memory of her son Benedict, and the members of the National Allergy Strategy Group. Helen, her husband Peter and their daughter Etta are here today in the Chamber. Parents should be able to send their children to school in the knowledge that they will be safe there, regardless of any medical condition or allergy.
Our amendment in lieu requires schools to have and regularly review allergy safety policies, and to publicise and publish them on their websites. In doing so, schools must have regard to statutory guidance, which has been co-produced with many expert stakeholders. Our amendment in lieu also creates regulation-making powers permitting the Secretary of State to place specific duties relating to allergy safety, including the content of policies, stocking adrenaline devices and securing allergy awareness training, and to record and report incidents.
This amendment applies to all schools in England. It provides for the same requirements to be placed on independent and non-maintained special schools. The noble Baroness’s amendment set clear timescales for its implementation; I reiterate our commitment that our new statutory guidance will be implemented from September 2026. We further commit to commencing the duties contained within these clauses as soon as possible, and to introducing the regulations as soon as possible, noting that we have undertaken to give schools at least a term’s notice of any new duty.
We believe that this will deliver the key protections for children with allergies and the flexibility for our requirements to evolve as clinical advice changes. I beg to move.
Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H)
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley
Moved by
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 41B in lieu—
41B: Clause 29, page 50, line 21, at end insert—
“551ZB School uniforms: review of limits on branded items
(1) The Secretary of State must review the effectiveness of measures intended to limit the cost to parents of branded items of school uniform required by the appropriate authority of a relevant school in England for use during a school year.
(2) A review under subsection (1) must, in particular, consider—
(a) whether a monetary cap on the total cost of branded items of school uniform could provide a greater reduction in costs for parents in comparison to an item-based cap,
(b) the impact such a monetary cap would have on pupils at—
(i) primary schools, and
(ii) secondary schools,
(c) the impact a monetary cap would have on schools and their uniform policies, and
(d) what further measures could be effective at reducing the cost of school uniform.
(3) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the coming into force of section 551ZA, lay before Parliament a report setting out the findings of the review under subsection (1).””
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, my Motion H1, as we heard earlier, is around the issue of a monetary cap on school uniforms. I will not rehearse the arguments that we have had already in Committee and on Report. However, if the Government are minded to continue to push for a numbers cap, as opposed to a monetary cap, on which your Lordships’ House voted before, I say to them that, ultimately, they should leave all the options open. If their numbers cap does not work, they should therefore have the option to revisit this.
The numbers cap is not my preferred option. I still would like them to consider the actual monetary cap, but what is wrong with coming back in, say, 12 months’ time when they do their review? Supporting my Motion H1 today would allow them to say, “Okay, we thought this would work and it doesn’t”. If it has not quite met the intentions of their aspirations in both their manifesto and this Bill, there would be an alternative provision that your Lordships have voted on previously. That is why I wanted to move this Motion. I do not want to prolong the debate, because we have had a bet on that we were going to keep our contributions to a minimum, so I shall stick to below two minutes.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Motion M. I support the amendments in lieu, Amendments 105B and 105C. I would like to thank the Ministers; I know that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, is here speaking tonight but perhaps he would pass on thanks to both the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, and Minister Bailey in the House of Commons for their engagement and the fact that they have listened on this issue. In particular, there are details in these amendments which I think the Government had talked about putting in regulations, but it has given real assurance to those who care passionately about this amendment to have these matters on the face of the Bill.
I thank all the noble Lords who signed the original amendment and spoke in favour of it. I also thank Alicia Kearns MP, who led the campaign in favour, but most of all, as the Minister has said, the thanks should go to the tireless campaigners, particularly Helen Blythe. If she is looking for alternative things to do, she would make an excellent legislator in this House. She has been indefatigable in her pursuit of Benedict’s law; it is a pleasure to welcome both Peter and Helen to Parliament today and, I think, friends of Benedict as well.
Helen Blythe was clear that this should not just be statutory guidance, although that was a great step forward, and that legislation was needed. I welcome the fact that the change will come in from September of this year. In her article for The House magazine—this was just before the vote in the House of Commons—Helen said:
“We are closer than ever to allergy-safe schools. Progress has been made. The government has shown it takes the protection of children with allergies seriously. The question now is whether we can secure that progress in a way that guarantees equal protection for every child in every classroom, for children like our son. Benedict’s life mattered. His death must matter too”.
I think the Government have risen to the challenge in putting down this amendment. As the Minister will know, there is a little question about funding, but I know that the department is very aware of that and will work for schools, which, as we all know, have budgets under pressure. But again, I am very pleased to be able to support the amendments in lieu that the Government have laid this evening.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone for their contributions. I start by addressing the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed. To be clear, and as I said in my opening speech, we will of course monitor the effectiveness of the limit as we implement it. One of the concerns I and the Government have is that the cost cap effectively creates a target price, incentivising price rises for any school currently below the cap. Many schools could in fact brand more items, reducing savings for parents, and it would be more complex for parents and place unnecessary burdens on them. So I hope that the noble Lord will reconsider his position. I think a numeric limit is clearer and simpler, it will deliver savings more quickly—which is what the Children’s Society survey says is overwhelmingly backed by parents—and it is of course a commitment in our manifesto.
Lords Amendment 102 seeks to limit the circumstances in which the adjudicator can set a lower published admission number. We want a system that ensures that school admission numbers give all parents a choice of high-quality local school places. As the noble Baroness mentioned, we have committed to updating the statutory School Admissions Code to ensure that school standards and parental choice are central to any decision on PAN.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, acknowledged, we have been developing proposed changes to the code and associated regulations, considering stakeholders’ views and the important points raised by Members as the Bill has progressed. I note what the noble Baroness says about the timing of the publication, but our proposed framework, which was deposited in the House Library yesterday, contains at its heart new statutory principles to help ensure that requiring high-performing schools to reduce places will always be a last resort. We will conduct a full public consultation on the proposed changes, and the updated code and regulations must be laid before Parliament.
Finally, I turn to allergy safety. I am grateful for the contributions of noble Lords who have spoken in support of the Government’s amendment. I will repay the compliment by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for her work on this. I will certainly pass her gratitude on to my noble friend Lady Smith and my honourable friend in the other place, and her acknowledgement of their work. I pay tribute to the people who have really made the difference: the campaigners who have worked so hard to ensure that this is implemented. Given the critical importance of allergy safety, we will seek to continue to work collaboratively, and we will continue to do so as we develop the regulations and prepare to implement the new duties.
To close, I urge noble Lords to support the Government’s amendment on allergies in schools, to support Motions H, J, L, and M, and to resist Motions H1 and L1.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, and particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for her support. I am still not convinced; the Government need to have another option at the end of it. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House.
Schools (Recording and Reporting of Seclusion and Restraint) (England) Regulations 2025
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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?
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward this statutory instrument. We understand His Majesty’s Government’s intention. It has been some years since the last update on reasonable force policy, and there has never been a consistent and standardised measure across our schools on how seclusion and restraint are recorded and reported. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support the principle of introducing such a regime, as does the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley.
However, much like my noble friend Lord Lucas, we would like to probe the Government on the impact assessment and the updated statutory guidance that will come into force in April. We understand the rationale behind the need for new guidance after many years, and we appreciate that the grounds on which teachers will be legally permitted to use reasonable force will be the same. However, there are several issues on which we seek clarification.
The new guidance makes it clear that teachers must be
“adequately trained in its safe and lawful use, and in preventative strategies”.
While it stops short of implementing a national training standard, the impact assessment assumes that each school will be responsible for ensuring that training is completed in accordance with the principles of the guidance. The impact assessment attempts to outline how this will work in practice. However, our concerns resound with those of my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed.
As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted so well, the department has not accounted for schools in the state sector in its budgeting and suggests a cost of just over £350,000 to independent schools. Are the Government suggesting that there will be no cost to the state sector in implementing this change? If that is the case, can we please have clarification on how they get to their zero-cost calculation?
Schools White Paper: Every Child Achieving and Thriving
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
First, to be clear, the majority of children who have an EHCP are in a special school. No child who is in a special school will need to leave a special school placement at any point. Secondly, on the point about bases in schools, part of the investment that we are putting in is to enable more opportunities within schools, to develop the type of bases that will provide specialist support for children but enable them to stay in mainstream schools in their communities, alongside their friends.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that these changes are desperately needed. The system is currently broken and we need to see change. I press the Minister on the issue of the pupil premium, a scheme designed for funding to follow disadvantaged young people. If any review is undertaken of how that money is allocated, can the Minister assure us that it will be done in a transparent way so that we know which people may lose out? Can the Minister commit to at least trying to protect funding for care-experienced young people when it comes to the pupil premium?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
This is not about how we cut the money that is available for disadvantage; this is about how we ensure that it is spent in a way that recognises that not all disadvantage is the same. We will be maintaining—in fact, we have increased—spending on the pupil premium. In relation to the overall review of the funding formula and the way in which we allocate the pupil premium, all of that will be subject to consultation, which will be starting this summer.
V-levels
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Nearly 85,000 students have started a T-level since the launch in 2020, and we saw considerable growth last year in the numbers of students taking them up. We are seeing improvements in the pass rate and in retention rates. There is a challenge to ensure that high-quality industrial placements are made available to more students. To ensure that that is possible, we have made some revisions to the requirements for industrial placements to enable even more students to benefit from them.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, T-levels have had very patchy coverage, particularly when it comes to the regions, so how is the Government’s communication plan going to be rigorous enough to ensure that V-levels, particularly in subject areas such as digital and engineering, reach out to areas that often do not engage with this, particularly in the north? The figures for youth unemployment and NEETs, particularly in the north, are very high.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I have had the chance to talk to students in colleges that are delivering successful T-level provision in the north, but I understand the point that the noble Lord is making. As I say, V-levels are an enormously important opportunity for young people who are not wholly clear what career pathway and occupation that they want to undertake but know that they learn better through applied learning and through assessment that is more practical—something that has been widely called for. The links to occupational standards that V-levels will include will also give confidence that young people will find a route through to work or to higher study as a result of V-levels. As I said in my initial Answer, we will also work hard to make sure that awareness of these opportunities is spread as far as possible.
Free Speech Complaints Scheme
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Students can already express complaints through the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. The plan for the complaints scheme was that it should focus on staff, visiting speakers and members. The noble Lord has talked to me about his alternative proposal. It is one that, along with other options, we are considering.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, if freedom of expression is a priority for this Government, why have they not considered short, stand-alone legislation, similar to the medical training Bill that we will debate later this afternoon, so that any issues could be resolved quickly and not leave academics in legal limbo for years to come?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We will not be leaving academics in legal limbo. Freedom of speech is undoubtedly a priority for this Government. It was a Labour Government who first enshrined freedom of expression in law through the Human Rights Act.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I want to share the experience of schoolteachers, particularly head teachers. I and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, were on a call earlier this week with three head teachers from different parts of the country and from very different economic backgrounds. Their plea was: “You need to help us, because at the moment we have different policies on phones”. One, interestingly, was banning year 7s from having phones but not others. Another was to say: “Put it away. As long as we do not see it, it’s not a problem”. Others have pouches. A lot of their time is being taken up by a small group of vocal and often aggressive parents who demand that their children have their phones at school. Those head teachers are being distracted from their core duties to deal with this, and they were pleading with us, particularly with this vote tonight, to send a clear message to the Government that head teachers want to teach children rather than police smartphones.
The other thing I want to share is about the harms. We have talked a lot about social media, but often phones in schools lead to further bullying. We all saw a few years back the craze of happy slapping, where young people in playgrounds came behind others and slapped them, and the footage would be used and shared.
There is one other thing I want to share that is very personal. When one of my sons first started at a school in Rotherham, he was very keen to fit in—because we are from Sheffield—and he wanted to make friends. Unfortunately, a small group of so-called friends followed him into a toilet a few moments after he had gone in and, while he was sat on the toilet, they kicked the door in and took footage of him on the toilet. He did not tell me or the family. I got a phone call from a local community centre a week or two later to say, “Shaf, we are horrified by what we’ve seen. We’ve seen footage of your son. He didn’t know what to do, he couldn’t get up, and these kids were laughing. We saw it, and we think you should be made aware”. To their credit, the parents of the two young men who were involved came straight to our house when they found out; they were mortified. The school itself tried its level best, but, I have to say, we had to leave that school, and my son had to go to the other side of Sheffield to give him a fresh start.
There are real consequences. That is why, tonight, I will be backing the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the amendment of my good friend and colleague, my noble friend Lord Addington, on the requirements for people with special educational needs.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I want to make just one point, following up on the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley. The medical devices exception in the amendment is already provided for. If a more general exception were made for special educational needs—that is already close to 30% of children—the pressure on parents and pupils would be to game this, and the proportion of children with a special needs label would rise to truly stratospheric levels, at which point the phone ban would clearly have no meaning whatever. I urge noble Lords to think about the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, on other ways to provide the assistive functionality that might be needed.
Erasmus+ Eligibility: Asylum Seekers
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts(2 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, may I press the Minister on the question of diversity in accessing Erasmus+, particularly in regard to pupils from state schools? I do not want international mobility to be the preserve just of schools in the private sector.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is exactly right. That is why we need to make sure, with this opportunity that we have with Erasmus+, that we do better than we did the last time we were in the Erasmus scheme in making sure that we get the benefits in the UK. It is a job for us all to make sure that our schools, universities, training providers and colleges understand the chances and are able to take them up, and that we see those chances shared widely among all those who could benefit.