Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Marlow Education Trust, which is a multi-academy trust.

This amendment, so ably moved by my noble friend, is necessary to confirm and clarify the objectives of the Bill, but also to stop the Government doing anything that is outside those objectives. I recall a similar purpose amendment being moved at the beginning of the Renters’ Rights Bill by my noble friends; a similar amendment was tabled at the beginning of the then Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Fox, from the Lib Dem Benches, proposed an identical purposes amendment to the then Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill. It therefore seems that such so-called purpose amendments are becoming a feature of the process of legislative scrutiny, made more necessary when the time for Second Reading, which also deals with the purpose of the Bill, was so short.

The amendment sets out the ambitions of the Bill, and the only point I want to make in a brief intervention is that these ambitions do not seem to take account of the many challenges facing the education sector. The Bill is in a sort of vacuum, detached from the real world.

The provisions of the Bill, as my noble friend just said, will impose new responsibilities on local authorities, children’s services, adult services, schools and teachers, but this is expected at a time when there are already enormous pressures on the sector, raising the question as to whether there will simply be the capacity to deliver, however much good will there may be and however well intentioned the measures.

Let us take finance. Non-protected departments such as the DfE have been told by the Treasury to model reductions of 11% in their expenditure. We do not know the outcome of that round, which is designed to keep the Government within their fiscal rules, but I would expect the department to have to make some uncomfortable decisions, and that will affect the capacity of officials to deliver reform and indeed of the department to fund reform.

These pressures are already present in many local authorities. Several local authorities, many of them education authorities, have already issued Section 114 notices. Some large county councils are being closely monitored by the MHCLG, as they are at risk of falling over this year. If that happens, they will have to cut back on existing services before they think of introducing new ones. The pressure on children’s services is already acute.

Then, as my noble friend mentioned, the Government’s recently announced proposals involve many local authorities being reorganised as we move from two-tier to unitary. There may be good reasons for this, but it will be a major distraction for local authority staff from doing their normal duties as they worry about whether they will have a job within the new structure. Expecting those officers to take on more responsibilities on safeguarding and supporting children in need, children in care, care leavers and children being home-educated is a big ask for those officials at a time of turbulence.

Schools are already confronted with unfunded pay increases for teachers, unfunded before any settlement above the Treasury estimates are arrived at. For many schools, there is an increase in employer contributions for pension funds—unfunded—and the employer NI contributions increase is also not fully funded.

Schools face numerous challenges. Many are struggling to find and retain qualified teachers, particularly in certain subjects such as physics, design and technology, and languages, with some subjects experiencing a 60% to 83% drop in postgraduate teacher recruitment. As my noble friend mentioned, there are also rising mental health issues among children, with a six-year wait for ADHD treatment, as we read in yesterday’s Times2. The SEND system is broken, with councils winning only 1% of appeals, and there has been a significant increase in pupil absenteeism since the pandemic, particularly among disadvantaged children—the subject of recent Questions.

That is the context of the amendment and the Bill. Ministers may fairly argue that some of the pressures are inherited, but many are not, and the Bill’s proposals are, in essence, those of the Government. Ministers are demanding a lot of the system. I pose the question whether there is the headroom, the capacity in the system, to deliver the reforms in the Bill. I hope the Minister will be able to allay my concerns.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I strongly support the purpose clause, particularly where it describes the purpose of the Bill as being to

“improve … standards and remove barriers to opportunity in schools in England and Wales”.

I will be very brief and focus on Part 2, dealing with schools. For me, Part 2 should be first and foremost about promoting parental choice, because only parents really know what sort of education is best for their children: not the state, but parents. There should be choice—as much as possible—since children are all different, and what can be better than an education which enhances the unique talents and personalities of each child? This also chimes with Article 2 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which states in terms:

“In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions”.


So choice should be enshrined in any Bill purporting to promote children’s well-being.

Is this the Bill’s aim? Looking at Part 2, I rather fear that the opposite is the case. To take just two examples, academies are important, since their heads have shown by their excellent records of achievement that they know how to run schools better than government. But Part 2 would impose a one-size-fits-all national curriculum on academies, with the worst probably to follow in sweeping Henry VIII powers. Then there are faith schools. What could be more important than a child being educated in an environment rooted in discipline, dignity and duty, which are the hallmarks of our faith schools, such as Haredi schools and other faith schools? But Part 2 would grant sweeping powers to local authorities to monitor, register and regulate faith-based settings. It seems to be an agenda seeking uniformity over choice and threatening our diverse landscape, so much admired across the world. As it stands, therefore, Part 2 of the Bill does not enhance children’s well-being, which is what the Title of the Bill says it is supposed to do.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, when I was in the other place, I went round a primary school in Andover whose catchment area was from the less well-off part of the town. The year 1 teacher had been there for 20 years, and she was also a local JP. She told me that, within a few weeks of the beginning of term, she could tell which children were likely to end up in trouble. There are many other primary school teachers like her. So early intervention for children who need support is crucial. That brings me to SEND. The current system is failing too many children, too many parents and too many other children in the class. One statistic makes the case. Councils won just 1.3% of appeals in 2023-24. So, to underpin what is in the Bill, we will need a comprehensive SEND reform plan to give the children who need the support the support when they need it, without all the current delays.

Because of some of the problems with SEND, many families are home-educating. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, I sit on the Social Mobility Policy Select Committee. Last week, we heard from witnesses that, within the cohort of children educated at home, there are a few for whom it was not an active choice but a decision of last resort—in many cases as a result of bullying, and sometimes after encouragement to deregister. Some of those children may then fall through the various safety nets, so I agree with my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes that we need to make sure that we look after those children through this Bill.

On that subject, Clause 30 requires local authorities’ consent for certain children—mainly those who have protection concerns—to be withdrawn from school. I am vice-chairman of the APPG on young carers, and there is concern that some young carers are being withdrawn from school to increase their caring responsibilities at home. That means that they could have even more responsibility foisted on them, and also cuts them off from the support that they would get through the school. An amendment to that bit of the Bill might be needed.

I will say a quick word on fostering. A long time ago, my wife and I were registered foster parents. I welcome what is in the Bill, and what was in the Spring Statement, on fostering. The MacAlister review, which has already been referred to, describes foster carers as the

“bedrock of the social care system”.

However, in the last five years we have lost over 5,000 foster carers, and more than 5,000 extra children are in care. Living with a family, as opposed to being in a children’s home, can provide a child with a more stable environment as they grow up. It also does so at a quarter of the cost. Can the Minister say what is being done to encourage more foster carers to come forward and to address the long delays in the assessment process?

On smartphones, along with other noble Lords, I joined a webinar hosted by Policy Exchange, in which we listened to Damian McBeath, the principal of the John Wallis Academy. He had tried what many schools have tried: a ban on the use of phones during lessons, with progressive penalties for breach. He said that had simply not worked, with one-third of lessons continuing to be disrupted by smartphones. Therefore, 18 months ago, the school went smartphone-free. Truancy was reduced; attendance increased; there were fewer instances of bullying, both in and out of school, which dropped by 80%; children were politer to each other and to their teachers; and teacher well-being improved. Children even started playing chess during the lunch hour. So we need a serious debate about smartphones, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.

The Minister has difficult choices to make. The universities are in trouble as overseas students fall away. Primary and secondary have unfunded pay increases, even before the pay review. So I end where I started: all the evidence I have seen shows that investment in early years—under-five provision, children’s centres, family hubs and Sure Start—has the greatest return, not just for the child but for society as a whole. I hope the Government will safeguard that investment.

Security and Policing: Facial Recognition Technology

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, first I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I apologise to the noble Lord but he will have seen in the Companion, at paragraph 4.32,

“it is considered discourteous for members not to be present for at least the opening speeches”.

The noble Lord was not present for the opening speech, so I wonder whether he should reconsider his decision to take part in the debate.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, as I was about to say, it is frankly not good enough for government Whips to arrange for a notice to be sent out by email at 12.51 pm to say that a debate is about to start. If there has been any discourtesy it has been from the government Whips to myself. If the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, are content, I will say just two or three words—I do not see the noble Lord rising to his feet.

First, as I say, I apologise to the noble Baroness for not having heard her speech, but having known her for quite a number of years I can guess the tone and nature of her remarks. I start from the premise that, by and large, facial recognition techniques are extremely valuable to the police and security services and, as a consequence, extremely valuable to the general population. I read of a case only this week in which somebody had been extradited from one side of the world to the other because the facial recognition system at a point of entry had picked up that this person was on a database and wanted for multiple murders in another country. I think that taking such people out of circulation and giving them the opportunity to be tried properly is good. I suspect that the noble Baroness—although, as I say, for reasons beyond my control I did not hear her speech—argued that these very powerful techniques should be more closely regulated. My simple point is that these techniques are extremely powerful but they are out of the bag, the train has left the station, or whatever metaphor you want to use to express it.

The Chinese website Alibaba has introduced a system whereby you can smile to pay. That is China, which is different, of course, and I am not aware that any similar system is being adopted in the UK or in other western countries, but that technique is there and it is only a matter of time before non-state actors start to use these techniques far more widely than is currently the case. I just wonder whether we want to have a regulatory system that ties the hands of the police and security forces behind their back under such circumstances when those techniques are available. Of course there should be a regulatory framework, but if there is, it should apply universally. I leave it to the Government to work out how they would enforce such a regulatory framework in other sectors.

My final point is specifically for the Minister and will perhaps be more in tune with something that the noble Baroness may have said. I would be interested in the Minister telling us what arrangements are being made for the storage of the data collected by the police and security agencies. Has she put in place a system whereby those databases are held within the United Kingdom on servers that are solely within the United Kingdom and by contractors that do not have written into the small print of their contracts arrangements that would enable them to copy that material elsewhere? Before the noble Lord, Lord Young, stands up, I would be grateful for her answer.

Registration of Marriage Bill [HL]

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 26th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is to correct a clear and historic injustice. When a couple are married and that marriage is registered, there is currently provision only for a father’s name to be recorded. This is an archaic practice and unchanged since Victorian times, when children were seen as a father’s property and little consideration was given to a mother’s role in raising them.

As we approach the centenary of the Representation of the People Act, it is only right that we consider how existing legislation excludes, or does not recognise, the contribution made by women. This Bill allows for this important and symbolic change to be made. As I am a bishop in the Church of England, it is important to note that the Bill will allow mothers’ names to be included when registering all marriages, not just those taking place in Church of England churches. I also draw your Lordships’ attention to an identical Bill introduced in the other place by the second church estates commissioner, Dame Caroline Spelman. We are hoping that between us appropriate time will be given so that this change can be made.

A marriage officially recognises the start of a new family. Including parents’ names on marriage registers gives children an opportunity to recognise the contribution of their parents in bringing them to that day. It is only right that mothers are recognised in their role just as much as fathers. Unsurprisingly, and as many Members of this House are aware, calls for reform of this system of marriage registration are not new. Indeed, in August 2014, the then Prime Minister David Cameron announced his support for a move to facilitate the inclusion of mothers’ names on marriage registers, and Members in the other place from all major parties have supported Early Day Motions in favour of the change. Much to the amusement of the staff in my office, a number of magazines written for what one might call the stylish woman have been interested in, and supportive of, my Bill. However, that should not be surprising. I imagine that many Members of this House who have been married themselves or whose children have married will have been shocked that only the father’s details are recorded. As someone who has performed hundreds of marriages, it seems to me wholly unreasonable that mothers are systematically overlooked on this special occasion.

The Church welcomes this change and has been working for many years with the Home Office and General Register Office on the finer points of its implementation. We have also solicited feedback from the Dean of the Arches, archdeacons and diocesan registrars.

Interestingly, I have also received a great deal of correspondence from genealogists, who are anxious for this change to be made. They find the current system of registration very frustrating as it registers only one half of the family tree. I believe that the Bill I have put forward is the best way to enact this necessary change. But, unfortunately, to enact the change is not as simple as creating another box for mothers’ names on marriage certificates, as has previously been proposed. To do so would require 84,000 hard-copy marriage registers, located around the country, to be replaced at a cost of roughly £3 million. It would also not solve the problems that arise when 84,000 hard-copy registers serve as the formal legal record. Books can be easily lost or damaged, and an opportunity for fraud exists when blank registers and certificate stock are stolen. Thus, the Bill also provides for marriages to be registered electronically, as is already the case in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The General Register Office already has a system for this sort of electronic registration, and, apart from set-up costs, no wheels need to be reinvented.

Before I outline one or two further details of the Bill, I will mention what it does not intend to do. It does not alter who can get married, where they can get married or who can perform that marriage. The Bill does not propose any changes to marriage ceremonies or the Church of England’s doctrine of marriage. These are all far greater questions, but they all fall outside the scope of this quite narrowly focused Bill. I understand that some Members of this House may have strong feelings on some of the other issues, but respectfully submit that I hope that these concerns will not get in the way of this simple and important change being made, which many people have wanted for such a long time.

I will also comment on the way in which this change will be enacted. It has been drawn to my attention that there may be some anxiety either in this House or in the other place about the power the Bill grants the Secretary of State to,

“make provision in relation to the registration of marriages in England and Wales”,

by regulation. Concern has been expressed that this constitutes a Henry VIII clause. Before your Lordships take a view on the constitutional appropriateness of the power provided for in the Bill, I humbly submit that the Bill is very bounded, both at Clause 1(1) and in the accompanying Explanatory Notes. The powers enacted by the Bill are simply those required to make this change in the simplest and most logical manner possible.

I am also extremely grateful to all Members who have come to speak in today’s debate, and I hope that I will gain their support so that this necessary change can be made. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I gently remind those taking part in this debate of the advisory Back-Bench speaking time and urge them to follow the excellent example of the right reverend Prelate.

Paradise Papers

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 6th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

The House was abused by the noble Lord, Lord Gadhia, and should be given extra time.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

We did have extra time—we allowed an extra speaker from the Opposition. I think that it is now time to move on to the next Statement.