Social Mobility: Sutton Trust Opportunity Index

Lord Storey Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Funding is important, which is why the Government will consider the national funding formula and ensure that it focuses on the right places and addresses need in the way the right reverend Prelate outlined. But it is also important that we take action—across schools, for young people through training, and in the early years, when children need to have the best start in life. We have already started taking that action.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I thank the Sutton Trust for this piece of work. It is worrying that, of the 20 constituencies with the highest ranking for opportunity, all are in London. Among the top 50, all but eight are in London. The lowest, of course, are in the north, including Newcastle, followed by Liverpool. We have had levelling up—whatever happened to that? My concern is that, often, government works in silos, but issues such as this have to be across silos. Is there a case for a Minister having responsibility for getting hold of this issue and making a real difference?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The whole Government are responsible for ensuring that young people’s opportunity is not determined by where they come from or other factors of their background. That is why the Government have an opportunity mission, as I outlined in my initial Answer; it is owned across government, and all parts of government are expected to make a contribution to ensure that young people get the best start in life, that they can achieve and thrive in school, and that they are then able to gain the skills necessary to succeed further on in their lives.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Storey Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 36 and 40 and respectfully agree with almost everything that has been said so far.

Amendment 40 concerns cases which cross local authority borders, which can present practical problems and sometimes jurisdictional problems. Families, both parents and children, move around and do not conveniently live together at the same time in the same local authority area. Sometimes, as has been suggested, they move to avoid attention, and there needs to be clarification of how and by whom these situations are to be dealt with.

Amendment 36 seems to be more fundamental. There are, of course, existing established arrangements focusing on children in need. Since at least the Children Act 1989, these can involve child protection conferences and child protection plans, which identify risks and assign responsibilities and expectations. It is perhaps not surprising that there are now operational concerns about the new clauses—in particular, whether they will unnecessarily duplicate or even disrupt workable and working existing arrangements.

In particular, we need to know whether the new teams provided for in these clauses will require the introduction of new personnel in a way that will deprive the family of the continuity and familiarity established by the original social work team. It takes time for a social worker to build a relationship with a child and family, and that should not be jeopardised. Changes bewilder the children and frustrate the parents. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, referred to consistency and ownership. Those are not just clichés, they are important and should, wherever possible, be preserved.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, we have not got any amendments in this group, but I will make a few observations. First, it is really important we get this right and we have the opportunity to do so between Committee and Report.

I have personal experience of multi-agency working in terms of child protection—not a great deal, but a few cases. The thing that nobody has mentioned is that, when a member of staff has left the job or moved to another authority, the whole process grinds to a halt; the new person who is busy looking at the case files is not able to benefit from the knowledge that has been gained. It is often very disruptive.

Often in Committee, somebody will get up and make a point that you have never really thought about. When the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, had finished, I thought, “Absolutely right”. But I had not thought about the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and he is absolutely right: in terms of police involvement, there can be a real conflict. It just proved to me, yet again, the importance of sharing these ideas so that we get a result which is actually workable.

It is interesting that the Children’s Commissioner suggests a

“threshold for assessment and support”

to bring greater consistency. This also picks up on the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raised about resources—that it is important that we get the resources absolutely right.

I was interested in the point about sharing practice with those practitioners—that they do not come with their own particular viewpoint but have that training and expertise to share and listen. Cross-border working can be very difficult indeed and can sometimes cause real issues as well, but, if we listen to each other, we can get this right.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, as we start on these amendments relating to the operational delivery of multi-agency child protection teams, I will just respond to a few general points before I go into the details of the points that have been made and the amendments.

First, on the point the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, made both today and on Tuesday, it is not true that there is no support for these arrangements among local authority children’s services and organisations concerned about child protection and keeping children safe. There is plenty of support. Nor has this idea somehow or other fallen out of the sky. In fact, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, gave us a good explanation of the history of this. Of course, last autumn this Government published Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive, which included the provisions that are in this legislation. So there has been plenty of time, and in fact the department has taken the opportunity to talk to a broad range of professionals and others about how we will ensure that all the provisions in the Bill work properly.

The provisions in Clause 3 particularly relate to the duty to protect children with respect to the legislative arrangements on child protection. The experience of child protection is that too often, this most difficult and crucial area of children’s social work has been carried out by social workers who are perhaps less experienced and not necessarily experts in child protection. They have had to do it without the full story of the children they are trying to protect, because of the lack of the strongest possible input from a range of different agencies to create that full story about the child and their needs, in order to ensure that they are protected properly.

On one of the concerns expressed by Professor Munro, as I emphasised on Tuesday, these provisions do not downgrade the quality or nature of social workers who will be working on child protection. They will increase the likelihood that the most experienced social workers will be working in the most difficult area. We are clear that a fully qualified social worker will be responsible within the multi-agency child protection team. Equally, in family help, where the worker is dealing with a child about which there are child protection concerns, that will also be a fully qualified social worker.

On the detail of this and how we got here in the first place, as many noble Lords have said, both today and in other debates on the Bill, nothing is more important than keeping children safe. Ineffective multi-agency working is a key factor where child protection activity fails, and, despite existing legislation, day-to-day operations can be inconsistent and ineffective. In its review, the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel found that inexperienced practitioners, ineffective multi-agency working and poor information-sharing within and between agencies results in missed opportunities to protect children. As I said, this is a situation I am sure all of us are keen to improve.

Often, several practitioners have information about a child and their family but the lack of joint working means that vital opportunities are missed to protect children from serious harm—for example, the GP treating a parent for their substance misuse, the school that notices a child arriving unwashed and unfed, and the police involved in call-outs for domestic abuse. But no one has the whole picture of the day-to-day life of the child. Early results from the 10 local area pathfinders for Families First—a programme that, as we discussed on Tuesday, is embedding family help, multi-agency child protection and family group decision-making in a single integrated system—demonstrate better management of complex issues, reducing crisis points and enabling quicker, effective interventions where children need protection.

I hear again the calls for publishing the first part of the pathfinders evaluation, which I wholly understand. I hope, even if it is slightly later than spring, that it will be available—I know it will be available for the development of these teams. But we are not even waiting for that. We are using already the experiences of those who are going through the pathfinders to help support practice in other local authority areas, through webinars and through the opportunity to share not just good practice but the challenges they are finding. The fact that some pathfinders are finding some things difficult is precisely the point of having a pathfinder: so that you can work out what works, where you might need to change things, how you are going to operationalise it and what additional support might be needed.

--- Later in debate ---

Our worry is that the Government want to press ahead before this is ready. To be clear, directors of children’s services tell me they think children will be harmed if these reforms are implemented too early and without sufficient funding. They do not say those things lightly. They have said that to implement before we are ready risks putting children in danger. The Government must listen to them and meet them, as my noble friend suggested, and meet Professor Munro. Surely the responsible thing is to pause.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I have a few observations to make, although this is not my natural area of expertise.

On Amendment 1, I said it was important that, when we propose to make a change and we run a pilot, that pilot is the lodestone of future developments. First, I am concerned about the comments made by Professor Munro. Secondly, I am slightly concerned by what the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said—that directors had frequently spoken to her. Perhaps she can tell us if that was one director or five directors? Was it a professional association? That is important to know. She cannot influence important discussions by saying, “Well, the directors have said”—we need to know who they are and how many there are. I could equally quote directors who have spoken to me and who have different opinions. We have to be very careful about that. The noble Baroness can talk to me afterwards, if she likes.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I am more than happy to clarify for the benefit of the Committee. I have spoken personally to three directors of children’s services and one deputy director, and I have encouraged some of my colleagues to talk to their local director of children’s services. I stress that I was surprised at their response. I did not ring up and ask them to tell me about all the problems with the Bill; I rang up and explained that I would be responding on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. I always prefer to talk to someone who is directly affected before I give my views, which may or may not be on message. It was an unprompted response. It is for them to decide if they wish to speak privately to Ministers, rather than for me to say at the Dispatch Box who they are. If the noble Lord has spoken to others who say something different, I am sure it is helpful for the Minister to hear that too.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

Actually, I have spoken to only one director and I would not wish to comment on what they said, because it would perhaps give the wrong impression.

The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, rightly said that our child protection procedures are the envy of the world. She is right to say that, but it does not mean that we are complacent about the fact that we have good child protection procedures. You have to constantly look at any policies or systems and change and improve them. I am always impressed that children are at the heart of everything we do. When we had the Question on media literacy, and I rather cheekily asked what the Government’s number one priority was, the Minister rightly said that it was child protection. That is symptomatic of how we as a House react. We cannot stand still but, when we make detailed changes, we have to be sure that they are right. We should pilot them, perhaps learn from the pilot, and then use that to change and adapt, and we have to make the resources available.

I am particularly concerned about qualifications—they are the hallmark of safety. You would not want a plumber without any plumbing qualifications to come to your house, nor would you want an electrician without qualifications to look at the wiring. So it is in child safety, where we must make sure that the people around the table are qualified to give judgments and opinions to protect children.

As somebody who has said that he is not an expert by any means in this area, I hope that, when the Minister replies, she might simply spell out for me why she wants to make those changes and why she has not taken the advice of somebody who clearly is an expert and knows what they are talking about, and who has—probably through frustration—had to write a letter to the Times.

[Baroness Longfield (Lab)]

Perhaps I might add a few thoughts from my experience. As Children’s Commissioner for six years, I found that the greatest level of responsibility was around children in care, and I looked in detail at the experience of children in care throughout that time. One of the things that was absolutely clear to me was that the ability of local authorities to focus on early intervention diminished hugely during that period. The amount that was spent on early intervention halved during that period, while the amount that was spent on crisis doubled. You do not need to be a great mathematician to realise that the more you spend on crisis, the less you will have for early intervention.

At the heart of Josh MacAlister’s review and recommendations, which were incredibly and extensively consulted on with people at all levels, from expert practitioners to leaders of children’s services and care-experienced people themselves, was that we had to move and reset the system towards early intervention, and do so boldly in a timely manner, because it was unsustainable for the public purse to do anything other. As important, if not more important, is that more children were being left without support.

Everyone needs to be alert at any time to the consequences of any move towards increasing harm for children. What we now know and have known for some time is that more children are coming to harm now because they are not getting that support early, so it is absolutely essential that there is an urgency about that. As I said on Tuesday, those directors of children’s services that I speak to want to see that change urgently and are very much in line with the proposals that are being put forward. There will always be things that directors of children’s services will want to amend locally and test out—that is absolutely right—but what they want to know is that there is a framework nationally for them to work within and clear guidance. So, it is so important that this is here. That is not to say that those individuals will not have their own expertise in delivering.

When there are experts involved in delivering these expert practitioner roles, they are actually going to use their judgment all the time. It is not going to be about process; it has to be about children and about those families. Anyone who is just following a process because the process is there is not the expert practitioner in that role that we have the ambition for. They are going to be looking at children’s lives and responding to individuals, but at the heart of it, we have to move boldly forwards, to—

Assistive Technology

Lord Storey Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises a specific point, although her broader point about the need for earlier assessment is one that the Government wholly recognise. We are, for example, providing further training for those in early years settings to be able identify needs earlier. As she says, we need to get better at the specifics around how we identify a need for assistive technology. That is part of the reason for training teachers, for example. I will take back her point about how we ensure that that happens as early as possible.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, the present system is time-consuming, as the pupil often has to wait quite a long time, and it is costly. Would it not be sensible to use the expertise of qualified SENCOs in schools to speed up the process?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that SENCOs play an important role in identifying a need for assistive technology. That is why SENCOs receive specific training on how to use assistive technology. From this September, as part of initial teacher training, all teachers will receive training on the use of assistive technology. In that way, I hope that more teachers will understand the benefits for children and that the equipment will be used in schools not just more quickly but more effectively.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Storey Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey (LD)]

Nobody has spoken from these Benches because we did not expect to be talking in generalities. We welcome this very important Bill. As I listened to some important contributions, I found that those people who spoke about a particular issue, were short in their comments and stuck to the point made an incredibly valuable contribution. The more I listened, the more I thought that maybe there is a case for having a purpose clause where you set out where you are going. This is a large Bill, and the amendment paper is bigger than the Bill itself. That does not happen often.

The last Bill was the famous Schools Bill from the previous Conservative Government. Had they had a purpose clause in that Schools Bill, maybe it would not have been abandoned in the way it was. Maybe they would have thought that they were going to be hijacked by the academy lobby, with the few minor changes that were suggested in that Bill, and the purpose would have been thought through. Had it not been abandoned, we would have already sorted and carried through many of the issues that we have grappled with over the past couple of years, such as unregistered schools, hundreds of thousands of children missing, home education et cetera.

I was particularly taken by the comments about music from the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet. I remind her that we have to thank a Conservative Government and Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who introduced the national curriculum, because before the national curriculum, schools could do whatever they liked. The only subject they had to teach was religious education. By having a national curriculum, we said nationally that we wanted our children to learn these subjects. My view now is that we should have a national curriculum, but that the national curriculum must leave space to do other things as well, and I think that is a common view. Going back to the contribution by the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, in which she talked about music, it is about not only the national curriculum but the dreaded EBacc, which has seen the number of people studying music in schools plummet as a result of its attack on creative education.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, on her speech. It was spot on, and it made me think quite clearly. I think that Part 1 is going to make a huge difference to children and families. Some of the amendments to Part 1, whether on kinship carers or whatever, will be life-changing if they are agreed.

On Part 2, we are clearly going to be divided. I have nothing particularly against academies. I am involved with an academy. I think we want to take the best of what academies do and make it available for all schools, perhaps in a reformed way, but I also want to do away with the excesses that academies seek. Academies should not be deciding—I am doing what I should not be doing. I am doing a general debate. Stop it. I want to look at particular issues.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, started quite rightly. Governments of all political persuasions, when there is a problem that they do not know how to solve, often get an expert. They drag an expert in and say, “We want you to look at this problem”. Nine times out of 10, they do not follow through on the recommendations, or they just take part of the recommendations. With safeguarding, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is absolutely right that Eileen Munro, an expert in her field, put forward some important recommendations, and they were quite rightly being piloted. We should learn from that piloting whether that is the way we should go. The Government must show what the evaluations of those pilots have shown. That is not a shameful thing. It is a sensible thing to do. If the evaluations show that, yes, this is great, let us do it. If they show that there are problems, perhaps we need to modify what we are doing. I hope the Government will think along those lines.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Nash, that I remember being very proud of serving on the Children and Families Act 2014 Committee. I think everyone on that committee felt that we had done a good job. It was one of those Bills that you actually enjoyed being involved with. At the end, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, organised a sort of celebration where we all got certificates and awards for various contributions we had made to the Bill.

However, on reflection, I wish we had piloted some of the key recommendations. Education, health and care plans are, quite frankly, in an appalling mess. Maybe we should have piloted those proposals to see whether they worked and got an evaluation. We would have then known the correct way to go. We should never have got rid of school action and school action plus. We should have kept general special needs in schools. That has gone, at the expense of education, health and care plans.

I end by assuring the Government that we will be constructive in everything we do, and we will support amendments, wherever they come across the Chamber, if we think they will actually enhance opportunities for families and young people.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords, not only those who have contributed today but those who have already contributed to the discussions on this important Bill at Second Reading. In fact, people enjoyed Second Reading so much that they decided they would have another go today.

The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, accused me of wanting to dismiss any amendments. That is wholly wrong; I want to get on to discuss the detail of those amendments in this Committee, as is the function of this stage. On this occasion, I fear that Amendment 1 not only is unnecessary but has been tabled to delay our detailed consideration of the significant legislation before us.

First, from a legal perspective, the proposed new clause would not have meaningful, practical effect. Secondly, on the point that many noble Lords have referred to about being clear about the purpose, intent and the outcome of this Bill, Ministers in the other place and at the Bill’s Second Reading in this place have been clear about the purpose of this critical legislation. I will use this as an opportunity to remind the Committee of what the Bill will achieve. This is a landmark Bill that will reform both children’s social care and education to ensure that, for all our children, background does not mean destiny and that at every stage of life, young people are supported to achieve and thrive.

As is already outlined in the Bill’s policy summary notes, the Bill has seven key ambitions. Its Explanatory Notes set out what each measure in the Bill aims to achieve and how it will do so. There will rightly be ample time in Committee to discuss these in the detail they deserve, and to listen to concerns and issues that have been raised by noble Lords and others. I hope to provide assurance on those or, where necessary, change them.

An ambition running through the whole Bill is to make up for lost time—14 years in fact—when action could have been taken to strengthen child safeguarding, to ensure that no young person slips out of sight of the agencies designed to advance their education and opportunities, and to set a minimum, a floor but no ceiling, on the standards we expect in every school across our country to enable every child to achieve and thrive.

In Part 1, the Government aim to keep families together and children safe, to support children with care experience to achieve and thrive, and to fix and support the care placement market. Importantly, the Bill will help more families to thrive together, while keeping children safe from harm and supporting them to succeed. Through the introduction of a duty on local authorities to offer a family group decision-making meeting—which I hope we will come on to discuss shortly—we are prioritising helping families and tackling problems before they become crises. This model builds on what we know works well.

Keeping children safe is a key purpose of the Bill. That is why, after years of inaction under the previous Government, we are legislating to stop children falling through the cracks and to ensure they are not out of sight of those who can keep them safe. As we will come on to discuss today and later in Committee, this is why we are legislating to introduce a single unique identifier, registers of children not in school, and new duties around information sharing. The Bill will also allow for more effective intervention when children are at the greatest risk of harm.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Storey Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Critically, as the noble Baroness talked about, recent evidence of the success of this approach appeared in the ground-breaking 2023 evaluation by Foundations. The key findings were that children were less likely to go into care and spent less time in care and that families were less likely to go to court for care proceedings. While I entirely understand that the Minister might be reluctant to be overly prescriptive in the Bill about one specific model being followed, I hope she might look favourably on this amendment. She talked about statutory guidance, but this amendment would put in the Bill that local authorities must use evidence-based approaches, rather than just having principles in guidance. That would give us all the confidence that approaches taken at a local level are based on clear evidence and best practice, to ensure that all the families we have been talking about this evening, requiring family group decision-making, are properly supported and have the best chance for a good outcome for the situation they are in.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches we very much believe that there should be an independent and suitably trained person; that is really important to us. We also appreciate that if this amendment were agreed—I do not know the timescale of training people up—there might have to be some transitional arrangements. It slightly jars with me that the party adjacent to me does not necessarily believe that teachers should be fully qualified—you can have unqualified teachers—but on this issue it wants a suitably trained person. In any situation where young people are involved, it is important that the person who is training or teaching is qualified and has the right skills.

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, I support this amendment. Clearly, the family decision-making groups are extremely important, and we are discovering them rather late in the day. I could have said this on any of the other amendments involving family groups, but this one particularly caught my eye because of the emphasis on an evidence-based approach. The Scottish Government have had this for nearly 10 years, which gives us a tremendous opportunity to learn from the successes and failures they have experienced over that time. How much contact has the Minister had with her Scottish colleagues to learn from the best and the worst, and what has she taken from that to put into this Bill?

Schools: Mobile Phones

Lord Storey Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises an interesting point about those who argue that autonomy for head teachers is important—which the Government support. By the way, I dispute his interpretation of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which we will have plenty of opportunity to discuss in more detail over the coming weeks. It is precisely those who make that charge who now want to remove that autonomy by saying that legislation is the only way to make progress.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I agree with what the Minister has said. One of the problems with mobile phones is to do with children’s mental health and well-being—and, of course, bullying. Mobile phones are often used to bully pupils. Does the Minister agree that it is important that governing bodies of schools, on which parents are represented, understand the issues and are able to discuss them and come to some conclusions?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point. I am sure that both the policies that schools are developing and have developed on mobile phone use, and the policies that they are required to have in place around bullying, for example, will benefit from well-informed governors, and input from parents and others on governing bodies, to make sure that they are effective and respond to some of the challenges that the use of mobile phone technology has brought.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Storey Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Mohammed of Tinsley and the noble Lord, Lord Biggar, on their maiden speeches. I also of course welcome them to the House. Today is an important day and this is an important opportunity to make the lives and well-being of our children and young people, and their families, so much better. I have listened to all 77 speeches, which give me great hope that this opportunity will not be missed by your Lordships.

The Bill gives us the opportunity to put right important issues that affect children and families in all sorts of different circumstances. In our schools, it gives us the opportunity to build on the successes already achieved, tackle new problems that have arisen and ensure that all children get the best possible schooling. Of course, we all want the best education for our children and to see them thrive at school. We want our schools to be places of learning where children learn, discover and play, and where we ignite the joy of learning. We want children and young people, whatever their background and circumstances, to want to come to school, to learn and to discover.

The Bill builds on the successes that have been achieved but also deals with the new-found issues that are holding our children back. Let me start with well-being. Only yesterday, the Global Flourishing Study on well-being was reported. The study, which questioned more than 200,000 people from 22 countries, found that the UK came third from bottom for well-being.

The mental health of young people impacts on not only their learning but, of course, their well-being. We must not forget the profound effect that Covid had on children, in particular the lack of socialising with other children. One in five children has a mental health condition and 500 children a day are referred to mental health services. We on these Benches require a qualified and fully funded mental health practitioner in every school. For schools with fewer than 100 pupils, it makes sense for a group of schools to share that mental health practitioner. In opposition, the Government said they wanted to bring a mental health worker to every school, but this is part of the responsibility of the Department of Health. It was a manifesto commitment, but as yet there is no Bill laying this out. Perhaps the Minister will tell us when this commitment will be honoured.

Our commitment would help not only the pupil but the school as a whole and, of course, take pressure from the NHS. Academies started by the Blair Government were seen as a way of tackling low educational achievement in disadvantaged communities. They had more resources, curriculum flexibility and autonomy from the state system. The coalition Government started on their academisation programme with a single-minded—some might say ruthless—determination. Now, over 80% of our schools are either stand-alone or part of a multi- academy trust. It is right that the current Government do not change this model but allow all schools to thrive and grow—but not at the expense of each other.

It must be right that all schools are inspected in the same way and all teachers’ pay is equitable. Our school system should ensure that all teachers are fully qualified or working towards a teaching qualification. With the right safeguards in place, this should not prevent individuals coming into schools to add to the teaching experience, whether it is helping with reading or whether it is somebody with a particular interest, knowledge or expertise sharing that with the pupils. It happens in maintained schools as well. We should also remember that teaching assistants at NVQ levels 3 and 4 can teach in the classroom.

There should be a national curriculum that all schools in England follow, which makes it clear what children should learn but which equally allows time and space for an individual school to pursue areas of expertise and interest. I hope that the curriculum review will understand this sensible approach.

Talking of sensible approaches brings me to the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who reminded us that university technical colleges have a specialised curriculum that makes them unique and successful. They will not have the time to follow a full national curriculum. It makes sense to allow them to have that flexibility. At a time when we need to be providing the skills to grow the economy, we need more university technical colleges. We do not want to see them struggle with the difficulties that they might face with a straitjacketing national curriculum.

Let me frame my next remarks with some statistics: 1.49 million children are persistently absent from school; 171,000 are severely absent from school; 117,700 are in elective home education; and 350,000 are missing entirely from the school system—as we have heard, we do not even know where many of them are. Finally, there were 83,920 incidents of children missing in care in 2024.

As a society, we must always put the safety and well-being of our children at the forefront of everything we do. That is why it is right to ensure that there is a legal framework in which home education is carried out. Currently, any parent can decide to home educate without informing anybody and without any registration or checks. The majority of home educators do a magnificent job in teaching their children at home, and many local authorities have a commendable and constructive working relationship with home educators. We want a framework that is supportive, not bureaucratic, and that ensures that home education is worthy of its name and keeps children in a safe environment. There must never, ever be another Sara Sharif tragedy.

As I said, many local authorities have an excellent relationship with home educators, with some carrying out groundbreaking initiatives. To encourage that relationship, why not pay the exam fees for children who are being home educated? After all, by being home educated, they are saving the state millions of pounds annually.

All schools must be registered and inspected. It cannot be right that some schools with strict religious fundamental practices, after being closed by Ofsted, reopen in the guise of home education. Equally, it beggars belief that children and young people—often the most vulnerable in our communities, including those with special educational needs—are placed in unregistered schools after they are excluded from school. Why are we allowing local authorities to do that? It is because the unregistered schools are cheaper than the registered schools. We need to do something about it. Having said that, some unregistered alternative providers do an excellent job, but, because of their size, they are not able to meet Ofsted requirements. In Committee, let us see whether there is a possible solution to that problem.

We want children to be nourished at school. That is why we brought in the very successful free lunchtime meals for all children at key stage 1. Independent research showed that it helped children, particularly from low-income families, and that it improved well-being, learning and attendance. We would extend that provision to special schools and key stage 2 pupils. We are not opposed to breakfast provision, but it does not reach all pupils, particularly those in rural areas. Breakfast club funding for primary schools will be £30 million, increasing the number of schools with free breakfast from 2,700 to 3,450—but that is out of a total of 16,700 primary state schools in England.

Time does not permit me to talk about a number of important issues. I would have liked to talk about the national tutoring guarantee, Traveller children, refugee children, extending human rights protections, outsourced children’s care, summer-born children, school uniforms, bullying and so on.

Noble Lords will have received dozens of briefings from organisations, charities and individuals, all showing a thirst to improve the well-being of our children and their families, as well as a genuine desire to improve education and schooling. Because I am an optimist, I know that during our seven days in Committee we will deal with amendments on many of those issues and I am sure that the Government will be prepared to listen and consider, and that we will improve on what is already a very good starting point.

Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [HL]

Lord Storey Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, I have no intention of opposing the amendments sent to us by the House of Commons. I regret the removal of the sole amendment passed by this House, which would, in my view, have given more time for Skills England to get its strategic work fully up and running before taking on the functions to be transferred from IfATE. Having said that, I greatly welcome the establishment of Skills England. I am impressed by the leadership appointments that have been made, with Phil Smith as chair and Sir David Bell as vice-chair. This body has a vital role in meeting the UK’s skills needs, which are fundamental to virtually every objective we and the Government have set for ourselves, and I wish it every success.

I would like to restate my two major concerns, and I will be more than happy if they prove unfounded in the fullness of time. First, will Skills England be able to effectively co-ordinate the work of all the different bodies that need to be involved if we are to deliver a successful skills system overall? That is across government departments, across regions and nations, across industries and sectors and across education and training institutions. Skills England will have to be a pretty effective and tough body with some teeth to make sure that all those bodies fulfil their particular roles in the overall system. My second, more specific question is, how will that successful skills system be defined, measured, monitored and assessed? What will the Government come back to tell us in a few years’ time to demonstrate that it has been successful?

I welcome the Bill as an important first step towards a successful skills system, and I very much hope that the concerns I have expressed will indeed prove to have been unfounded.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, it is not often that you are involved in a Bill and everyone agrees what the outcome should be and realises that the issue is more important than anything else. I commend the Government for coming into office and realising straightaway that, if we are to get economic growth, we need the skills to provide it. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, was quite right to say that it is not only about having a set of skills and saying that this is what we as a nation need; we need it regionally as well. The needs of the north-east will be very different from those of, for example, the north-west or the south-east.

I hope we can now get on with the job of delivering this. I thank those with whom we have worked closely: the noble Baroness, who has jetted back from Australia, where she has picked up some ideas on skills; and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who has been stalwart in bringing us together. I particularly thank the Minister for always giving of her time to listen to us—to both disagree and agree. Finally, I must not forget to thank the Bill team for their work, and Adam Bull in the Lib Dem Whips’ Office.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have been involved in the passage of the Bill. His Majesty’s Official Opposition remain concerned that the Government have removed the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran. Other noble Lords also expressed concerns that Skills England will be overly focused on administration, resulting in it being unable to prioritise its central strategic tasks. By allowing a year to pass between the creation of Skills England and the abolition of IfATE, we would create sufficient time for the effective transfer of functions and ensure that Skills England could take on its role successfully.

We would suggest that it is a mistake for the Government to ignore these concerns. In both your Lordships’ House and the other place, there has been cross-party support on this issue, and we cannot hide our disappointment that the Government remain unconvinced on this focal point. We on these Benches are worried that the transition period as planned will have a damaging impact on apprentices.

At the same time, we recognise that this is a manifesto commitment. We will, of course, while challenging constructively, work with His Majesty’s Government to progress their skills programme, and we do not intend to push this issue any further. We will continue to remain vigilant on the transition to Skills England and ensure that it is working for the very people it aims to help. Should our concerns increase, we will endeavour to raise them in your Lordships’ House. It is now up to the Government to ensure that Skills England is able to run effectively and does not become overwhelmed with the weight of the accreditation and assurance process.

We are indeed grateful that His Majesty’s Government have listened to some of the key points that have been raised across your Lordships’ House, and the Bill has been strengthened accordingly. A report on the exercise of functions conferred or imposed on the Secretary of State has now been included, which is important for accountability. The Government have listened to the concerns about the Secretary of State preparing apprenticeship plans and assessments, and will, as such, publish information about the relevant matters that have been taken into account.

We thank the Minister for her engagement throughout consideration of the Bill, and we thank all noble Lords who have made such valuable contributions and worked constructively on its scrutiny.