Welfare Reforms and Youth Unemployment

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Baroness Smith of Malvern

Thursday 11th June 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Evans, for bringing forward this debate, which has been very constructive and wide-ranging. There was a clear consensus in it that far too many young people in this country are leaving education and not getting the chance to work. We must be clear about the scale and implications of this challenge that we face. It is, of course, not a problem that arrived in the last year, or in fact in the last two years; it is deep rooted and long term.

The number of young people not in education, employment or training has been rising for years, increasing by a quarter of a million in the three years leading up to the election. As many others have said, it is now close to a million, which is far too high. But it is not inevitable; it is a crisis of opportunity and one that we should not accept.

I agree with those who said that what it is not is a failure of ambition among young people. There are many young people keen to learn and work who are not provided with that opportunity. It is too often a failure of the system to provide the opportunity and support that they need. As others have said, it is not only a social challenge; it is an economic one as well, and one that needs early intervention and work across the whole of government. That is why I am so pleased that I sit now in two departments: the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education. One of my bosses, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, commissioned Alan Milburn to examine the underlying drivers of rising youth inactivity, because we were clear that this is not a single issue with a single cause. Also, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester identified, this is a series of individuals, quite often with differing needs and reasons why they are not working, learning or earning. In many cases, they very much want to work.

Another area of consensus in the debate, I think we all agree, is that Alan Milburn’s report provides a very important, serious assessment of the challenge. Having read quite a lot of Government-produced or prompted reports in my time, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Young, that it is very much better than a lot of them and certainly well worth a read.

On the point made by several noble Lords about the position of the economy and costs in the labour market, I am sure noble Lords will recognise, as I pointed out to the House the other day, that Alan Milburn makes it clear in paragraphs 264 and 266 that it is not actually about the national insurance contribution increases or the national minimum wage. If we look at the way in which both of those impact on the labour market, but also the reliefs that are available to employers, particularly with respect to national insurance contributions when they take on young people, we see that this is not at the heart of the cause of youth unemployment. We have the fastest-growing economy among G7 countries. We have 416,000 more people in work in this country now than a year ago. Our unemployment is lower than in most OECD countries and the EU average. There are specific issues that young people face in being able to access the labour market; we need to respond not only to the economic conditions but to all the other issues too.

The other important thing about the Milburn report is that it brings into sharper focus the nature of what we face, not just its scale but its persistence: what has been described as “stickiness”. Too often, once a young person falls out of work or education, they can become stuck outside the system and, the longer that continues, the harder it becomes to return, with lasting consequences for their prospects, their health and their earnings. The report highlights the growing number of young people who are not only out of work but who are assessed as having health-related barriers to work. That underlines that this is not simply a labour market issue but one that cuts across employment, health, education and welfare. That is why it cannot be a challenge for one department alone. There must be a whole-of-government effort and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, mentioned, a broader campaign across the country to tackle it.

As the Chamber has also recognised today, when so many young people are outside work or education, we constrain labour supply, limit productivity and store up long-term costs for individuals, for the Exchequer and for the economy. That is why this Government have acted and are investing. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, this Government are investing now to save for the future. There is an additional £2.5 billion in the youth guarantee and the growth and skills levy, in support of young people and employers over the next few years, including a £3,000 youth jobs grant for employers hiring a young person who has been out of work for six months. There is also a £2,000 incentive for small and medium-sized businesses taking on young apprentices.

We are turning the focus of apprenticeships back to young people, including the full funding of training costs for SMEs employing apprentices under 25. I strongly agree with my noble friend Lord Austin and the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, about the need to achieve this pivot of the apprenticeship system back to young people, and to reverse the sharp decline in apprenticeship starts among young people, which have fallen by 40% over the last decade. That is why we are expanding opportunities for young people through new foundation apprenticeships. It is why we have introduced a £2,000 hiring payment for non-levy-paying employers. We are removing the requirement for small businesses to fund any element of training, and there will be additional investment for taking on apprentices if they are out of work.

This is backed by an additional £1 billion investment and will support 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships over the next three years, providing a clear route into skilled work and helping businesses grow with the talent that they need. My noble friend Lord Austin is right to emphasise the role of government here. I am proud that our estates strategy at the Department for Education, as we repair and rebuild schools, will provide places for 13,000 more apprentices and T-level placements.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Willets, that we are considering the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee on the impact of apprenticeships on benefits, and we will have more to say about that.

Another element of the youth guarantee is the expansion of youth hubs across the country, bringing together employment skills and the sort of wider support that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester rightly identified in local communities.

The noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in particular raised the issue of rural unemployment. We recognise that transport can be a barrier for young people in rural areas. That is why we design youth hubs to be flexible, to work with local partners and to tailor delivery to what works best in each area, including flexible opening hours or choosing locations that can align with local transport patterns. Youth hubs bring together employability support from jobcentre work coaches with mental health, housing, essential skills and employer engagement support in community settings, so that young people have access to local opportunities and support tailored to community needs.

We are also, in doing that—I think the noble Lord, Lord Young, is right about the need for more place-based funding and the ability to address this problem—actively testing and evaluating place-based delivery models. This includes how we reach a diverse customer base, including those with specific needs and in hard to reach areas, such as through jobcentre vans: mobile units are being tested in nine areas including Bolton, the highlands of Scotland and north Wales. In particular, the youth guarantee trailblazers, where we are working with mayoral strategic authorities in eight areas, are testing the ability of those strategic authorities with government investment to test innovative approaches to identify and deliver support to young people who are NEET or at risk of becoming NEET. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, will be pleased to hear that in the west of England one of the ideas in rural north-east Somerset is to facilitate e-bike loans for young jobseekers to be able to travel.

On another element of the youth guarantee, young people on universal credit looking for work will get support through the youth guarantee, with a dedicated gateway meeting and intensive support if they are still not earning or learning after 13 weeks. Nearly 900,000 16 to 24 year-olds will be able to benefit from that dedicated session and four weeks of additional intensive work coach support, including work experience and the ability to enter into and benefit from sector work-based academies as well.

Finally in the youth guarantee there is a jobs guarantee, providing six months of paid government-subsidised work for young people who remain unemployed in the long term after all of that other support. I welcome the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, about her experience at Tesco. She is absolutely right that these are not easy cohorts of young people by definition if they have been out of work for 18 months. The delivery partners we are working with are not consultants. They are organisations with exactly the experience of getting young people to work and getting them there on time. I agree with the noble Baroness about all those requirements; perhaps we should send the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, round to get them up in the morning. It is the Government’s intention—we have expanded the investment in this—to enable this job guarantee to provide the six months of paid work to 90,000 young people by virtue of our investment.

I will just touch on retail and hospitality—which was raised by several noble Lords—not least because, as we know, retail and hospitality have traditionally provided those first experiences in work for young people. We know that employers want to play their part in supporting young people. For instance, I welcome the announcement just this week from Marks & Spencer that it is launching a training programme for 1,000 young people.

I had a very good visit to B&M, where, in a meeting facilitated by the BRC, I met other retail employers; and I was able to join the BRC HR leaders’ webinar just the other day. Of course, while there are concerns about the costs and risks of employing young people, I found there was also a lot of enthusiasm from retailers to be involved with, and be a part of, the Government’s youth guarantee, and to play their role in it. In exchange, we want to support and work with employers to develop opportunities for young people. In the DWP, we continue to expand our current network to more employers in key sectors, such as retail and hospitality, where there is a critical demand for workers. We have expanded opportunities through new foundation apprenticeships in hospitality and retail, in addition to our new V-level in marketing and retail, which we aim to introduce in 2028.

Noble Lords also raised an important theme about how we prioritise prevention: how we make it easier to identify young people who are at risk of becoming NEET, and how we stop that from happening. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, identified, we know that these barriers emerge early in life. As a Government, we are focused on ensuring that young people get the best start in life, which many are not currently getting. That is why we are bolstering our prevention measures. Through our child poverty strategy, we are taking steps to lift 550,000 children out of poverty. We have committed to ensuring that 75% of children reach a good level of development by the end of reception, so that they can engage in learning. We know that persistent absence from school is not just a short-term problem but closely linked to young people becoming NEET later on. That is why we welcome the action that has led to the fastest improvement in attendance in a decade.

We know that the transitions between school, further education and employment are too often simply not strong enough to keep young people engaged and moving forward, and we know that the curriculum needs change. That is why we set up the Curriculum and Assessment Review, which will enable young people to have more of those skills that are necessary to operate in the modern job market. It is why we are reforming post-16 qualifications to increase the number of young people who can do T-levels, and it is why, as I said, we are introducing the new V-level qualification, which will be closely linked to occupational standards and involve working with employers, providing a high-quality vocational route for young people.

I welcome the further push from the noble Lord, Lord Baker, on the UTC Sleeve, and I will come back to him on that.

I also hear what noble Lords are saying about work experience. One of the things that Alan Milburn identified is the way in which it is much harder now for young people to get work experience, which is why, through our youth guarantee, we will find 300,000 placements for work experience and sector-based work academy programmes, backed by major employers such as Manchester Airports Group, JD Sports and Gatwick Airport. We are strengthening work experience in schools, with a guarantee of two weeks’ high-quality work experience for every young person. As my noble friend Lady Nargund said, volunteering also plays a very important role in this.

There are other deeper challenges at play as well. More than one in six young people who are not earning or learning had a mental health condition as their primary condition in 2024, more than double the rate in 2012. That is why it is so important that this week we were able to show how the expansion of mental health support teams in schools is progressing. Six million children now have access to mental health support in their schools. We know that young people with SEND and those who struggle to achieve at school face a significantly higher risk of becoming a NEET. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is right. There are supported internships, which I was fortunate enough to see in practice at Whipps Cross Hospital last week through Project SEARCH, which I note is also now working with Amazon on a very big expansion. Supported internships are important for those with education, health and care plans—but the Government are also investing in research as to how we can develop them for those who do not have EHCPs.

This is about much more than education or employment alone: it is about early support and well-being, and ensuring that our systems work together around the young person. It is about more responsibility on schools to identify early who will become a NEET, with the improved risk of NEET indicator tools that we are developing. It is about ensuring, as we are doing, that we build on the existing guarantee of a place in education or training for every 16 and 17 year-old. Much of this, particularly the youth guarantee, is welfare reform, but we are reforming the welfare system more widely as well to ensure that it supports people to engage with work wherever possible. That includes legislating for a right to try, so that disabled people can take steps into work without fear of automatic reassessment. It means changes to universal credit to reduce disincentives to work and investment in personalised employment support, including for people with health conditions.

These reforms reflect a broader shift under this Government, from a system which can too often write people off to one that acts as a platform for opportunity, now also essential to ensuring the long-term sustainability of the system, supporting those who need it while enabling more people to move into and progress in work. We are clear, however, despite this significant progress, that more must be done, because for many young people, the barriers to work do not begin at 16. As I have said, they often have their roots in poorer health, disadvantage and unequal access to opportunity. As our population ages and migration falls, we will depend more than ever on the talent and potential of our young people. We cannot afford economically or socially to leave so many outside work and education. We will take determined action; we will learn from others, which is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State at the DWP is visiting the Netherlands, possibly even at this very moment, to learn from it.

We look ahead to Alan Milburn’s full recommendations in the autumn, but our objective is clear: to build a system that places opportunity and work at its heart—

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My noble friend Lord Evans asked at the beginning of the debate when the Government would respond to the Select Committee report on social mobility. The report was published in November; the government convention is to reply within eight weeks, and it is now almost six months. When will we get a reply?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am sorry that there has not been a reply yet. I think there should have been, and I have already made that point to both the DfE and the DWP. I will undertake to ensure that we get that back as quickly as possible.

Just to reiterate, our objective is clear: we need to build a system that places opportunity and work at its heart, one that is not concerned only with what people receive but asks a broader question of how we help people to change their lives. That is the challenge before us, and it is one that this Government are determined to meet.

Student Loans: Review

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Baroness Smith of Malvern

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the student loans regime.

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

My Lords, given the inherited fiscal situation, we are making tough but necessary decisions to protect both taxpayers and students. It is right that those who can afford to repay their student loans do so. The system remains heavily subsidised. Lower-earning graduates are always protected by the cancellation of any outstanding loan and interest at the end of their repayment term. The Government continuously review student finance to ensure that it remains fair, sustainable and supportive of students from all backgrounds.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I am grateful for that. At the moment, a student leaving with an average debt of £53,000 has to earn £66,000 per year just to cover the interest on the debt. The deputy leader of the Labour Party recently described that as “egregious”. The Budget made the situation even worse by freezing the thresholds for students from 2027. A month ago, the Chancellor described the current regime as “fair and reasonable”, but not a lot of people agreed. Does the noble Baroness think the leader of the Opposition might be on the right track by suggesting capping loans at RPI?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I know the noble Lord would not want the suggestion to be made that the level of debt impacts on the amount anybody repays in any given month, because, of course, that is wrong. As I have already identified, the majority of students do not repay the whole of their loan, so they already receive a considerable subsidy from the state. I am sure there are noble Lords in this House who feel slightly aggrieved about being accused, as the leader of the Opposition did, of presiding over a scam in developing the current plan 2 student loan system, but it is important that we maintain the protection for students and graduates that the student loan system creates while being open to thinking about how we can mitigate its burdens on students and those who are repaying their student finance.

Youth Unemployment

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Baroness Smith of Malvern

Thursday 5th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce youth unemployment.

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

My Lords, the Government are investing over £1.5 billion through the youth guarantee and growth and skills levy to support 16 to 24 year-olds to gain the skills and experience they need to earn and learn. A key part of this is the jobs guarantee, which provides six months of paid work for every eligible 18 to 21 year-old on universal credit for 18 months, funded for 25 hours a week with wraparound support. Grant applications for phase 1 opened on 29 January to identify delivery partners, and delivery will begin from spring 2026 in six high-need areas before expanding nationally, supporting around 55,000 young people over three years.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that reply, and I welcome the initiatives the Minister has just mentioned, such as the youth guarantee. However, do not those initiatives need to be accompanied by welfare reform, which can quite often pull young people in the opposite direction? A few weeks ago, the Prime Minister said:

“Our welfare state is trapping people, not just in poverty but out of work—young people in particular”.


That was reinforced by Alan Milburn, the Government’s employment tsar, who said:

“We’re spending more money on health and disability benefits for 16 to 24-year-olds than we are on apprenticeships. Is that really the right priority?”


Will the forthcoming King’s Speech therefore take the difficult but necessary decisions to reform welfare and allay the concerns of the Minister’s colleagues?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Well, this is welfare reform. It is wrong that there are 900,000 young people who are neither earning nor learning, which is why we are changing the system. We are ensuring that there is an earlier interview for young people. We are introducing 300,000 more opportunities for young people to gain work experience or training linked to an employer. Then we are ensuring that they have a backstop work placement that they will be expected to take at the end of 18 months. That is welfare reform, which this Government are putting in place to respond to the challenges left by the previous one.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Baroness Smith of Malvern

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am more than happy to do that. The point we have raised consistently throughout this is that it is right that parents have the ability to home-educate their children, if that is what they choose to do, but the idea that they are forced to do that because the vast majority of our schools are bad is simply wrong. The vast majority of our schools do a very good job for children. That is why the vast majority of children are educated within them and benefit from that.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Young of Cookham) (Con)]

The debate is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. Does he wish to respond?

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Baroness Smith of Malvern

Monday 19th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, government Amendment 50 regards notifications where children are placed in temporary accommodation. All noble Lords who spoke to this in Committee saw this as a clearly sensible change to make sure such children can receive the right support when they need it. I am pleased to tell noble Lords that, following extensive cross-government work, the Government have tabled an amendment to introduce a new duty on local housing authorities to notify educational institutions, GP practices and health visiting services when a child is placed in temporary accommodation, if consent is provided.

This underscores this Government’s commitment to break down barriers to opportunity and support all children to have the best life chances. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and my honourable and very good friend Dame Siobhain McDonagh for raising what the House in Committee agreed is a very important issue and for engaging the Government constructively on it. This government amendment builds on the previous amendments, achieving their intent. Children in temporary accommodation are particularly vulnerable and may need additional support. This notification will alert health and education providers, enabling them to respond appropriately in accordance with existing duties and responsibilities and help to mitigate the harmful impacts of living in temporary accommodation.

For example, schools and colleges may wish to consider interventions such as providing pastoral support or practical assistance such as breakfast clubs, after-school activities and homework support. Health services may consider making proactive contact with families in temporary accommodation to ensure they do not experience gaps in healthcare provision. Guidance will follow for local authority housing officers and the public bodies receiving the notifications to ensure that we effectively implement this very important measure. Therefore, I beg to move this amendment.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, this is an improved version of Amendment 165, tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and me. We are all very grateful for this very positive response. Some 41,000 households in temporary accommodation have been placed out of area and 26,640 of them are households with children, so a large number of children will benefit from this.

I have three quick questions for the Minister. First, when she wound up the debate in Committee, she said some technical issues needed to be resolved. I think she said there were some operational issues to see how it can work. I assume those have been resolved. I hope there can be some IT solutions that mean we do not have to do this manually and it will be done automatically. Secondly, under proposed new subsections (6)(a) and (6)(b), the bodies that have to be notified that there is a child in their area in temporary accommodation out of area are medical practices and schools in England. Those living in Shropshire, for example, may be placed out of area in Wales—is there any duty to notify the Welsh authorities that they have children in temporary accommodation living in their area? Thirdly and finally, when will this very helpful amendment come into operation? What is the commencement date? Having said that, I warmly welcome this initiative.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Baroness Smith of Malvern

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in group 5. These amendments mainly concern the requirement to seek consent should a parent wish to withdraw their child from school in particular circumstances. Just to reiterate, we recognise that most home-educating families provide safe and suitable education in the best interests of their children. The consent measure applies only to specific groups of children—where there are child protection concerns or the child has a special school placement. We are confident that this is a proportionate response to help to ensure that these children’s needs are met and are protected.

With respect to the detail in the amendments, I turn first to Amendment 208, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which would remove the requirement for a school to notify the local authority responsible for the child if that is different from the local authority where the school is located when a parent intends to withdraw the child to home educate. To be clear, schools will hold the child’s address; therefore, they will know which local authorities to notify. Working Together to Safeguard Children, the statutory safeguarding guidance, is clear that schools should be included in child protection activity and planning, and therefore should also be aware of which local authorities should be contacted. It is crucial that schools retain the responsibility to verify whether consent is needed for home education. Without this, children in scope of the consent process could be mistakenly removed from school rolls without permission, or the consent decision could be delayed.

Turning to Amendment 209, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young, which has rightly received the most attention in this group of amendments and would require a carer’s needs assessment before the child is withdrawn from school, I commend the noble Lord on championing the needs of young carers. To be clear, I certainly do not demur from his overarching argument—and that of other noble Lords, such as my noble friend Lord Watson—that young carers are in need of specific attention, care and consideration from local authorities because of the enormously difficult position they find themselves in.

The local authority will have ample opportunity to fully consider the child’s circumstances as part of the consent decision-making process. In fact, that is the whole point of having that process. Of course, under Section 436C(2), which we touched on in, I think, the group before last, local authorities will also be able—be expected, in fact, I would suggest—in the case where a child is a young carer and is being educated at home, to record and keep relevant information about that child. If they were being home educated, the fact that they were a carer would be an important part of the information that a local authority should record about them, precisely in order to make sure that they are getting the support that they need.

The Children Act 1989 already provides robust safeguarding measures for young carers, who may be recognised as children in need, ensuring that their support needs are assessed by their local authority. Of course, we will ensure that our reforms to both education and children’s social care work for all disadvantaged children and young people, including young carers.

I think it was interesting that some people, in responding to this amendment, were arguing that being a young carer should not be a reason why a child could not be home educated, and others were arguing that it would be better for that child to remain in school, with support, and be able to learn without the relentless role, as I am sure it is, of being a carer. I think this suggests that there are probably differing circumstances for young carers, and it reinforces the general point that local authorities should take seriously their responsibilities to fully consider the needs of young carers and to ensure that their support needs are being assessed.

Turning to Amendments 216 and 217—

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

Before the noble Baroness leaves Amendment 209, will she say something, or perhaps write to me, about the delay in getting a needs assessment for young carers?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Sorry, yes, I remember that the noble Lord asked about that. I will write to him on the broader issue of the speed with which young carers are getting their assessments. I will follow that up separately.

Amendments 216 and 217, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to remove or amend the requirement for local authorities to notify any other parent of the child of their home education consent decision. In law, all parents have responsibility for their child’s education, and it is therefore necessary that all parents are notified, unless there are exceptional circumstances. Amendment 216 would remove this. Including exceptional circumstances provides safeguards where a parent does not have to be notified: for example, in cases of domestic abuse. Of course, children must be protected from domestic abuse. Amendment 217, however, states that

“exceptional circumstances will always apply where domestic abuse is alleged or established”.

We are concerned that this could have unintended consequences, including a parent making an accusation of domestic abuse to prevent the other being informed of the consent decision. Again, sadly, local authorities are quite used to the way they need to behave and the care they need to take in circumstances of allegations of domestic abuse. However, we will provide further detail regarding what “exceptional circumstances” means in this context in statutory guidance. As I have said previously, we will engage with stakeholders when updating that guidance.

I turn to Amendments 218 and 381 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei. Amendment 218 would require local authority staff to have at least two years of personal home education experience of their own children before making consent decisions. Amendment 381 would require at least one person with direct home education experience on safeguarding panels for decisions related to home-educated children. I think it is possible to be an experienced practitioner without specific lived experience; however, that can make a good, important and interesting contribution. I am not sure that the noble Lord’s experience about men not being able to work with women giving birth would be recognised by the large number of male obstetricians operating around the country, but that just proves that, while lived experience and, most certainly—

Schools: Mobile Phones

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Baroness Smith of Malvern

Thursday 6th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their position on the use of mobile phones in schools.

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

My Lords, we know that using mobile phones in schools can lead to online bullying, distraction and classroom disruption, which can lead to lost learning time. The Government’s Mobile Phones in Schools guidance supports schools on how to develop, implement and maintain a policy that prohibits the use of mobile phones throughout the school day, including during lessons, the time between lessons, break time and lunchtime. Head teachers are rightly responsible for the implementation of guidance within their schools.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. I understand the tension between a clear national policy on the one hand and an element of local discretion on the other, but I was struck by the reply of the noble Baroness’s ministerial colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, in a recent debate on this subject in your Lordships’ House, in which she said that

“last year, around a third of pupils reported that most of their lessons were disrupted in some way by a mobile phone”.—[Official Report, 28/11/24; col. 895.]

Is that not just unacceptable? Should the Government not consult on some stricter options, one of which would include a ban on mobile phones in primary schools and, in secondary schools, making them inaccessible during school hours, except where they are needed for medical reasons?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

First, it is clearly unacceptable if lessons are being disrupted. That is, in many ways, a broader issue than whether mobile phones are being used and goes to the behaviour policies that every school has a responsibility to have and to develop with their parents. I think it is important that we look at the way in which schools are already taking action to limit mobile phones. Actually, schools are moving towards developing many of the things that the noble Lord has suggested should be in place. This comes back to the point he raised about whether we believe that, with clear national guidance, including examples of how phones should be controlled in schools, we should nevertheless allow a determination at school level by head teachers of how that is actually implemented. I think that the balance is broadly right at the moment, although it is of course important that we keep this under review and that we encourage schools to do what is necessary to enable all classrooms to be purposeful and calm and for every child to be able to learn.

Education: Early Years Attainment Gap

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Baroness Smith of Malvern

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that those are the areas where need is very great. In our recent announcement of £15 million-worth of investment in the first 300 nurseries based in schools, we will be encouraging applications from those where there is a particular need. We will be using evidence of those applications to ensure that we are able to improve the provision in the areas that need it most.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

How confident is the Minister that she will be able to recruit the 35,000 additional staff that she needs to meet her target?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As I outlined to the noble Lord, it is a very big challenge and one that we inherited from the previous Government. We have reinvigorated the recruitment campaign and are focusing on ensuring that we have those staff in place. Although it will be very difficult, we are committed to ensuring that, next September, we deliver that improved entitlement for childcare.

Schools: Absenteeism

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Baroness Smith of Malvern

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce absenteeism in schools.

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

My Lords, tackling absence is at the heart of our mission to break down the barriers to opportunity. If children are not in school, it does not matter how effective or well supported teaching and learning is; they will not benefit. That is why we are committed to working with the sector to provide access to specialist mental health professionals in every school and rolling out breakfast clubs to every primary school.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I am grateful for that. Does the Minister agree that Covid weakened the contract between parents and schools? As a result, we have over 150,000 children missing on average every other day, double the number pre Covid, as well as 1.7 million missing on average every other Friday, again double the number pre Covid. Against the policies that she has just announced, will she agree to have targets to reduce absenteeism for those two categories?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right to identify the scale of children who are both missing school and, in the case of those who are severely absent, missing more than 50%. We have seen those figures continue to rise, unfortunately. I am open to the idea of targets being the right approach, but I absolutely assure him that we are working extremely hard with a range of policies: the breakfast clubs that I have outlined, the specialist mental health professionals, the new guidance expecting close working between schools and local authorities, and the work on data and better analysis of those who are absent. That was started by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and we are absolutely determined to build on it to make sure that we bring those figures down.

Government’s Childcare Expansion

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Baroness Smith of Malvern

Monday 21st October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right that grandparents quite often play a very important role in supporting their children and grandchildren. I will take away his exhortations about support for grandparents and perhaps return to that matter directly with him when I have found out more about it.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, further to the questions about the workforce, the point has been made that it is about more than just giving an adequate salary for those in childcare; it is about recognition. The Minister referred in her reply to status and staff development. What steps are being taken to develop a proper career structure so that this field of education can compete with the rest of the education field in having a well-defined career structure for people to aim at?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right; it is of course about reward, but it is also about progression and recognition. We have worked hard already to try to reset our relationship with staff across the education system. Over the coming weeks and months, the Government will set out further plans for reform to ensure that the workforce feels supported and valued. We want a system that celebrates and supports early years carers and embeds it into our wider education system. Alongside the work I have already outlined on recruitment, recognition and status is something that we will want to return to in the early years strategy as we develop it.

Early Years Provision: Bell Review

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Baroness Smith of Malvern

Monday 21st October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

While we are ambitious for early years and childcare, we will need to consider the outcome of the spending review in thinking about where we can focus our resources. We intend to produce an early years strategy early next year, which will certainly build not only on what we have learnt in government and our work engaging with stakeholders and the dedicated staff in early years and childcare, but on Sir David’s recommendations.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that to deliver the programme, we will need another 35,000 people working in childcare by this time next year and 6,000 by the end of this year? How confident is she that she will find the necessary people?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right about the challenge for the workforce. That is why, last week, as he says, we published further information about the 75,000 additional staff that will be necessary. It will be a challenge, but we have already begun work, focusing on the Government’s childcare recruitment campaign, “Do Something Big”. We have also introduced a T-level in early years and childcare, and through Skills England we will be identifying the gaps and ensuring that the support is there for employers to develop staff in this area. But it will be a very big challenge to make sure that the places and people are there to deliver the entitlement by next September.

Independent Review of Children’s Social Care

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Baroness Smith of Malvern

Monday 9th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is right, I am afraid, in his description of the enormous challenge in children’s social care at the moment, particularly by identifying the role of Ofsted. As I outlined in this House last week, Ofsted will be working closely with the children’s social care sector to determine how it can protect children in the way that he described. Also, on the particular challenges in the children’s social care placement market that my noble friend outlined, local authorities are facing enormous rising costs for these places and, as my noble friend says, for places which increasingly are not serving the needs of children. This Government are clear that excessive profiteering from vulnerable children in care is unacceptable. Through the legislation that we will bring forward, and through the regulation that he described, we will tackle this.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the MacAlister review described foster carers as the bedrock of a social care system. However, in the last five years we have lost 1,000 foster carers, with 5,000 more children in care. For many children, a children’s home with dedicated staff is the right answer, but living with a family in foster care may provide a more stable environment at a quarter of the cost. What is the Minister doing to encourage more foster carers to come forward and provide that care for children?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right: for many children the stability that comes from being in a loving family with foster care is absolutely appropriate for them. Therefore, it is disappointing that, since 2019, the number of mainstream local authority foster carers has dropped by 11%. We will continue the policy of foster care hubs to provide support and resource for local authorities and foster carers in 10 different places—covering 64% of the country—and, where those hubs do not have impact, we will also develop the foster link resource to support children’s social care services in other parts of the country. There is a role to play for all of us and all local authorities in celebrating foster carers and encouraging more people to think about doing it.