Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Boycott Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I attached my name to Amendment 161 on automatic enrolment for the Healthy Start scheme, as indeed did the noble Lord, Bethell—so if we are looking for broad, cross-party-political spectrums, this is one of those.

The noble Baroness has already set out the powerful case for this amendment—I will just add one thing. She spoke about the Government’s apparent lack of data in this area. In the other place, my honourable friends asked the Government a whole series of questions about this. The response was that the NHS Business Services Authority, which operates the scheme, does not hold any data on the number of people eligible. That is surely fixable, so it should surely be fixed.

I will focus on Amendment 175 in my name, which is kindly supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. It would insert a new clause to provide for

“holiday … and activity programmes for pupils in receipt of free school meals”.

This would be a lot of pupils. Before the Government’s recent changes, about one in four pupils were already eligible for free school meals. Those were extremely tight criteria; the Government have now opened them up a little. There is some debate about the number of children affected. None the less, these are children whom the Government have acknowledged, and most of whom the previous Government acknowledged, really need the support of hopefully healthy—I will get back to that—hot meals during term time.

However, what happens at weekends? There is a reason why #HolidayHunger has almost become a cliché. Those children come from families whose budgets are at the absolute edge anyway. Then, the holidays come, and they cannot be guaranteed to be fed.

This amendment would also ensure that there are activities and programmes relevant to those children during the school holidays. One thing we have seen in many of our areas, particularly some of our poorest areas, is that the availability of free activities during the school holidays has fallen and fallen. We have seen the privatisation of public spaces, the fencing-in of playing fields and the removal of public spaces that then become privatised and can be quite hostile to children. If you go out and you need access to a loo, you have to buy something, and that is just not available to people. So, this amendment would ensure that there is a meal and a holiday programme that supports those children and those families. It is tackling poverty and tackling some of the very acute issues of public health that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to.

I note, declaring my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, that this would have to be funded from the centre. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred, I think, to difficulties with the free school breakfast programme and how some schools have had to pull out of it because they did not have the funding. Certainly, local government would really struggle to fund the proposal in this amendment, but I would argue to the Government that the relatively modest costs would be far outweighed by the benefits for public health of the inclusion of some of the poorest children in our communities, giving them a space that is constructive when otherwise they might be spending their time in potentially destructive ways.

I think it is worth noting that this is not just something that I have dreamed up. My honourable friend in the other place, Ellie Chowns, tabled a similar amendment. We have only to go to the Republic of Ireland, which quite recently announced a programme for the coming year that looks remarkably like this: activity programmes for two to four weeks aimed at the children at most risk of disadvantage and those with complex special educational needs. In Ireland, 58,000 pupils took part last year and they are expecting more next year, so this is something that a very broadly comparable society is already doing, acknowledging the need and acting on it.

Finally, there are a huge number of positive amendments in this group, and I am not going to speak to anything like all of them, but I particularly want to highlight Amendment 190, to which I would have attached my name had I got my act together, and Amendment 194, to which I would have attached my name if it were not already fully subscribed. Both are about the quality of school breakfasts and lunches, which is so crucial. I make one general point in this context. The Times Health Commission reported recently and it had a really interesting look at Japan and what a contrast Japan shows compared to us. In Japan, just 4% of adults are obese, compared to 26% here. In Japan, fewer than 2% of under-fives are overweight: they are essentially all at a healthy weight.

What we have is school systems. The Times journalists visited the school system and saw what school lunches are like at Kohoku primary school. The children were eating spiced baked fish and vegetables sprinkled with dried bonito and rice and they were ladling out the food themselves. A pupil got up at the start and explained why the sweetcorn in the rice had a beneficial nutritional advantage. The school is built around a giant kitchen with windows on every side, so pupils can see the chefs preparing the meal.

I wanted to say that because I was reflecting on the Committee’s debate a couple of days ago, when we were talking about children’s social care and I had an amendment that said we should end for-profit provision in children’s social care. It struck me when I read Hansard afterwards that nobody had actually defended the idea of a market in private provision of social care. All the people speaking against my amendment said, “Oh, well, we are where we are now and it’s too difficult to change”. I think that when it comes to free school meals or school meals—on a later group I am going to say that there should be school meals for everybody—we have to say that this needs a giant leap of change. We cannot allow this to continue as it is now. We have to have the imagination to think, yes, we are in a bad place, but we can do significantly, massively better than this, not just try to have a little improvement.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

I shall be brief, because the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has set out comprehensively so much about the amendments that I support, Amendments 175 and 194. Amendment 175 echoes what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said about the need for “holiday hunger” to be sorted out in this country. For a parent the summer holidays are a cliff edge in all sorts of directions. Not only are you deprived of the possible childcare while struggle with your two jobs, your mortgage and so on, but your children are also deprived of possibly the only decent meal that they might get in the day—and I shall qualify the word “decent” when I come back to it in a minute.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I invite the noble Baroness to acknowledge that this Government, since they were elected, have committed £1 billion to school meals. It would be nice if she would mention that, as well as everything else, which I am sure we all agree about.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

Thank you—I acknowledge that more money is going in and absolutely acknowledge that there is an expansion of free school meals. I am only worried about the evidence that we have seen. Yesterday, we had a whole-day meeting of Feeding Britain, and I am afraid that a lot of the information that we heard is that this is not there yet. I hope that it filters down, because it is a very straightforward thing to do.

I have put a lot of things into the amendment, which is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Walmsley, on what school standards should be. It is a good thing for the Government to aim at, and I hope that they will look favourably on the amendment.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I have Amendments 183D, 186A and 187A in this group. I am delighted that the Bill will deliver on Labour’s manifesto commitment to offer universal breakfast clubs for all primary-age children, which will be a significant step towards ending morning hunger in schools across England. But there is a concern that the policy appears to be designed solely for mainstream pupils and, as a result, risks failing to meet the needs of those with special educational needs and disabilities. My amendments would make school breakfast provision more accessible to SEND pupils and create a more individualised approach to the provision.

Although most pupils with SEND are in mainstream education, special provision is vital for many children and young people across the country, for whom there are different barriers to accessing education, which need to be acknowledged and supported by government. The format in the Bill for universal free breakfasts applies only to primary-age pupils, which would mean excluding secondary-age pupils in special schools from breakfast provision. That is inequitable and, within those schools, ultimately unworkable. Special schools are more likely than mainstream schools to be all-through settings, where children can be taught based on need rather than age. My Amendments 183D and 186A would therefore extend the school breakfast provisions in the Bill to include secondary-age pupils in special schools.

Many of these children also access school transport funding, and it is vital that schools and local authorities work with families to create flexible transport approaches, so that anyone wanting to access breakfast clubs is then enabled to. Additionally, some children with SEND access one-to-one support during the school day. This support is a vital key in unlocking the education system to these young people. Without funding for this support being extended to breakfast clubs, they face the prospect of being locked out. For that reason, I support Amendment 186 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, which would ensure that breakfast clubs are accessible for all pupils with SEND.

Breakfast clubs need to be accessible, but they should be able to deliver a mixed-model approach to breakfast provision. That means being delivered in the classroom or in nurture groups, as opposed to being available only in the normal dining area. Breakfast clubs are harder to access for pupils with SEND, which is why, in special school provision, only 16% of schools partnering with the charity Magic Breakfast operate a breakfast club without another style of school breakfast being delivered as well. I was privileged to witness that at first hand when I visited Eko Pathways school in East Ham recently. More than just instructive, it was an absolute joy to see the children so enthusiastically engaging in the breakfast club. I was struck by the way in which some of them, after queuing for their food, then took it to their classroom and began to tuck in as the lesson began. I accept that that would not be appropriate for mainstream pupils, but it was clearly an important part of making the delivery of breakfast at Eko Pathways school so effective in preparing pupils for their lessons each day. For that reason, I am happy to signal my support for Amendment 187 in the name of my noble friend Lady Lister.

I turn to my Amendment 187A, which calls for the Secretary of State to gather and then publish detailed information on the state of breakfast club provision in schools. Of course, the Department for Education will monitor the overall uptake levels of school breakfast provision, which is the key metric in understanding how far-reaching the impact of the policy is proving to be. I believe that the DfE should gather representative data on the characteristics of those receiving breakfast in schools, such as eligibility for free school meals, eligibility for the pupil premium and inclusion on the Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index, which has been referred to in previous groups today. That list is not exclusive, but these are the measures that include children and young people most at risk of morning hunger.

I believe the DfE should also consider collecting what is known as satisfaction data from pupils, teachers and caregivers. Without underlying metrics such as satisfaction, it is difficult to improve and augment the policy to increase its reach. Finally, impact measurements should be considered. These can include measuring positive effects on attendance, behaviour and health and well-being, as well, of course, as educational achievement further down the line. The charity Magic Breakfast collects data in relation to these, through both school surveys and academic studies. I hope my noble friend will agree that the Government should consider a balance of such methods to ensure robust data collection. I suspect she may say in her response that this is not required in the Bill, and I would accept that if she would also give a commitment that the data will be collected along the lines that I have suggested.

However, outside of the legislative structure, the Government are showing a commitment to developing better evaluation of policy. The Evaluation Task Force says that it drives

“continuous improvements in the way government programmes are evaluated in order to inform decisions”.

Including data collection and publication in the Bill would be a strong indicator of the Government’s commitment to evaluation.

The risk of not collecting this data is shown by the Welsh Government example. I refer to Amendment 187B in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, regarding impact assessment. I believe that six months is too short a timescale for meaningful assessments to be made. To some extent, the same might be said of Amendment 190 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Cass, but a period of 12 months would at least allow a full school year to be assessed.

Data collection is essential. Primary school free breakfast provision has been available in Wales since 2007, but the Welsh Government do not publish, nor seemingly even record, significant data on the effectiveness of their policy. That might explain why there have been no substantial changes to that policy, which has been in place for some 18 years.

In 2022, Wales was included in Magic Breakfast’s Hidden Hunger report, which found that, despite the legislation being intended to reach all primary schools in Wales, 85% of disadvantaged pupils were not reached by the provision. In another 2022 report, the Child Poverty Action Group and Parentkind noted that school breakfast clubs in Wales were

“not being made available to all families, despite a universal free primary breakfast offer”.

Wales was a leader in school breakfast provision, but a lack of monitoring risks the policy falling behind. Robust data collection being mandated by the Bill could avoid the risk of England falling to the same eventuality.

Lastly, I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, is not in his place to speak to his Amendment 184, which seeks to ensure that the Government underwrite the cost of providing breakfast clubs. Although it is not appropriate for that to be in the Bill, I sympathise with the noble Lord’s point. Indeed, this point was also made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Bennett, in their contributions. I was of course pleased to see the rollout in April of the first 750 schools providing free breakfasts for almost 200,000 pupils, but some schools have either not put themselves forward to participate or, in a few cases, have even withdrawn, citing financial reasons.

We all want the breakfast club provisions to be in place the length and breadth of the country, and eventually that will happen. I hope my noble friend the Minister will have something to say on the question of schools having their costs covered to ensure that the rollout can be completed as quickly as possible.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Boycott Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I tabled two amendments in this group. The first, Amendment 202, follows on in a complementary manner to the amendment moved so excellently by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, because it addresses the cost issue of uniforms by asking for the mandating of second-hand uniforms in schools.

I am sure the Minister will say that there is already statutory guidance encouraging schools to provide secondary sales of school uniforms, but her own department did a survey in 2023 and found that some 65% of parents said that their schools provided second-hand sales. That is a significant minority of schools that are not providing it.

It has been estimated that more than 1.4 million quality items of school uniform are lost every year, which is a loss to parents in savings, a cost to us all when local authorities have to deal with the disposal of those uniforms and a cost to the environment in dealing with the plastics and the carbon that comes from disposing of those garments.

In this amendment, I call for the mandating of schools to provide second-hand uniforms. If the Minister is not able to agree to that at the end of noble Lords’ remarks, I hope that in the refresh of the upcoming sustainability and climate change strategy she might think about the issue of uniforms, which was not in the previous strategy. Clearly, looking at the affordability of uniforms and sustainability could a be a win-win for parents and for the environment.

My second amendment, Amendment 202A, deals with a slightly different issue: the health impacts of school clothing on young people and the inclusion of forever chemicals, PFAS, in much of the clothing that young people are wearing. They are called forever chemicals because they do not break down in the environment. There is now emerging evidence of significant negative health impacts in terms of cancer, impacts on fertility and, crucially for young people, neuro development. These PFAS are mainly picked up by people through the skin. For young people, this is a really important issue.

PFAS are added by the manufacturers to give a stain-resilient quality or make clothes ironing-free. But these stain-resistant surfaces do not last—they will be kept on an item of clothing for a maximum of 10 to 20 washes before they are washed away—so there is a limited benefit for a long-term potential health impact on our young people. For this reason, both France and Denmark have got rid of PFAS in clothing. My amendment would insist that the Government stop allowing PFAS to be used in school clothing because of the impact on the welfare of our children.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 202A in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Bennett. This is a fantastically important amendment, and I will be very distressed if the Government do not seize the moment as the knowledge comes into view about what these kinds of chemicals in cheap clothes provide and are putting into our children’s systems.

Jeremy Grantham, who many people may know, has been one of the main funders of climate change research across the world over the last 40 years and indeed was one of the funders behind the LSE and Nick Stern report. I met him about three weeks ago and he said he is no longer providing climate change funding, largely because he thinks it is a more or less foregone conclusion that things are not going well. He has turned his entire industry and scientific might behind looking at PFAS and the chemicals that are in not just our clothing but our soils.

Let us look specifically at clothing around the world. American Airlines has recently been sued because it produced very cheap uniforms for its stewards and stewardesses. They have started to develop incredible ranges of different skin illnesses and internal illnesses. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, found, research in Denmark has shown that prenatal contact to cheaply made fabrics with PFAS in them has led to reductions in IQ among children. France is banning all school uniforms containing PFAS from next year.

Interestingly, Fidra, a big company that works on and looks at the environmental impact of chemicals, says that people want these chemicals in clothing because it is very easy to wash, it dries almost immediately and you never need to iron it. But interestingly, it discovered that people treat these clothes in exactly the same way as they treat something of better quality. Every time you wash it—it is not just when you put it on your skin—bits come off in the washing machine. They are now in circulation: they are in breast milk, placenta and our plants. Our plants are looking at 25% reduction in whole fertility within the next 10 years.

Some of the work that Jeremy Grantham is doing is looking at male fertility. Some people may say we have too many people in the world, but this is probably not the way we want to do it—crashing male fertility and all sorts of things. These are dangerous.

As everybody knows, I have worked on ultra-processed foods. One of the interesting things about these chemicals is that a single one of them on their own may not be dangerous, but they are if you mix them up. That is the whole point of chemistry. That is why we went into chemistry labs for our GCSEs and had fun making things explode. They change.

Those chemicals go into these fabrics. They can be manufactured at immense volume and cheapness. As I say, it is not just the school uniforms but the stuff kids are buying when they can buy 20 garments for 20 quid through a company such as Shein. These are dangerous. We can stop this.

I completely support all the amendments in this group. Yes, I want school uniforms because they are fair, and I want them to be cheap, but I do not want them to be dangerous to our children. Please can the Government start doing something about it? Europe is ahead of us. Other countries are ahead of us. We can do this.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Parminter. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, just made an extremely powerful case for Amendment 202A, to which I attached my name. In the interests of time, I shall mostly focus on the two amendments that appear in my name in this group, which are Amendments 202B and 484.

Amendment 202B is essentially an expansion of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. She focused on the health impacts of PFAS; I am focusing on the broader issues of the health of school uniforms. This amendment

“seeks to allow the Secretary of State to regulate school uniforms, given the human and environmental health risks they represent”.

That is not written in the amendment, which is written broadly to have a review within a year, but I say that in the explanatory statement and that I am particularly thinking about

“artificial fibres and chemical constituents”

—so it includes PFAS, but is much broader than that.

This is actually a narrower version of an amendment I tabled to the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill that was debated on 11 December. I included a great deal of evidence in that that I do not have time to include today, but I said then that these products, chemicals, plastics and other substances are accumulating in our bodies day by day. That picks up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott: we have a cocktail effect of bodies being bombarded from our clothing, our environments and our food. We are talking about young people, who are going to live for decades, accumulating more and more PFAS and more and more plastics in their bodies.

This is particularly important when we think about school uniforms, because we are forcing pupils to wear them. This is the state mandating that our children wear clothing which is highly likely to be doing them harm. Think about how it will go from the clothing into people’s bodies: for a blazer, a pupil is running for the school bus or running around in the playground. Smaller children touch their clothing and then they put their hand in their mouth, or they touch something else. They will be ingesting whatever is in their clothing.

It is literally week by week now that we get more medical and research reports on the impacts, but just this week microplastic particles have been found in human semen and female reproductive fluids. There is great concern about the potential impacts on fertility, as has already been referred to. There are microplastics in samples of human penises, and this may have a role in erectile dysfunction. There is a study out just this morning from the Netherlands. Every person in the Netherlands—and there is no reason to think that we are any different—has multiple types of PFAS in their blood, and virtually all of them are above healthy limits. We do not have a detailed explanation of exactly what impact this cocktail has, but we apply the precautionary principle to the environment, so surely we should apply it to the health of our young people and the clothing we are putting them in.

As has already been referred to, France is moving towards a ban on most PFAS imports and manufacture, and by 2030 will ban all PFAS-treated textiles. I note that, in the debate on the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, who is not currently in his place, got quite concerned about what had made his shirt non-iron. I had to go away and look this up: it is formaldehyde. Europe has stepped up and has stronger regulations on formaldehyde exposure in products than we do.

In 2019, the National Trust recognised that the artificial fibre fleeces it supplied to its staff and put in its shops shed an estimated 1.7 grammes of microfibres every time they were washed. It was also concerned that, when people walked through its wonderful, beautiful, natural environments with them, they were shedding plastics everywhere. This is, of course, an environmental health issue as well as a human health issue, but in the context of this Bill, the human health issue for children and young people is overwhelming.

Shifting topics slightly, my second amendment in this group, Amendment 484, is about school hair requirements. It says:

“Pupils must not be denied opportunities to take part in classes, or any other school activities, by reason of their hair style or cut, unless for reasons of health and safety”.


The origins for it go back to a couple of events I have been to with the World Afro Day campaign group. To quote Michelle de Leon, the founder of that group, the bias against Afro hair has become ingrained in some parts of the education system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, when the Minister said that we are working across government, what actually is happening? Is there a review? Is there something specific about school uniforms? Is it just about PFAS? Can we get some details so that we who are concerned can keep an eye on it?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The point I was making was that it relates to all clothes and is considering the risks from PFAS used in textiles, but I will be happy to provide further information about how that work is being carried out. In the interim, our statutory guidance is already clear that it is important that schools consider sustainability and ethical supply chains, as well as engaging with parents and pupils when tendering for uniform contracts. I know that many high street retailers already offer school uniforms without PFAS treatments for many of the reasons that noble Lords have outlined today. Furthermore, UK product safety laws require all consumer products to be safe, and manufacturers must ensure the safety of products before they are placed on the market. We already have robust systems in place to identify the impact of chemicals under the UK registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—UK REACH—and to regulate them effectively.

On Amendment 484 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, discrimination has no place in our schools or, in fact, in society. Our guidance is clear that in setting uniform and appearance policies, including on hair, we expect schools to meet their existing obligations under equalities law not to discriminate unlawfully. Guidance also already exists for schools on preventing hair discrimination, published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The noble Baroness had a lengthy list of cases. I do not know the details of all those, but I think it is reasonable for schools to develop and implement behaviour policies, to uphold school rules and to use sanctions that are fair and proportionate, and that could well also relate to uniform and expected appearance within schools.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Boycott Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to follow my noble friend in supporting the amendment, which is in his name and mine. I am conscious of the hour, so I shall be brief in endorsing the point that my noble friend made. This is a modest amendment in that it seeks only to place a duty on Ministers to do something that we surely would all wish them to do anyway. It is crucial because it seeks to make the huge error of closing schools during the Covid pandemic far less likely to be repeated.

Many of us thought, at the time, that it was a mistake to engage in protracted school closures and that it would be immensely damaging. The excellent work of UsForThem, run by the splendid Molly Kingsley, helped to highlight the problems that were going to be caused. These harms were always going to be significant, but the evidence since the end of the Covid restrictions, as my noble friend pointed out, suggests that our fears five years ago were actually a gross underestimate of the damage that would be done to children and young people.

The repeated lockdowns and school closures constituted, in my view, the biggest public policy disaster in modern history. The fact that the interests of children and young people were treated so lightly is a disgrace. The damage to mental health, to education and to levels of school attendance have all been, and continue to be, profound. The lessons from Sweden, Florida and those few places around the world that took a more measured and intelligent approach is proof that many of our restrictions delivered little if any benefit while doing immense damage.

This amendment would ensure that, should there be pressure to repeat school closures in a future emergency, the government response would have to be transparent and that the criteria used to decide on school closure and opening would have to be clear and available to the public and to Parliament. It would ensure that Parliament would have a role in making those decisions in a way that Parliament was denied during the Covid period. I urge the Government and the Committee to accept it.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 502P and will give my support to Amendment 502YB, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. If the noble Lord, Lord Young, chooses to put his amendment to a vote later, I will support it; I thought that his introduction to it was very well argued.

I am deeply sympathetic to the Ministers handling this Bill, as schools are being asked to do so many different things. It is the widest brief imaginable—and I am coming up with something else at the end of the day and at the end of the Bill. My amendment is about adaptation and mitigation around flooding and heat risks. Just this summer, we have seen schools having to close because of excess heat. Near where I live in Somerset, the school in Tiverton is now flooding almost every year; the defence is very poor. Looking at all our green and sustainable amendments, my worry is that the Government are not taking seriously enough the issue of how we adapt to the coming weather threats. This amendment is a stitch in time for tomorrow.

Before the summer, I tabled Questions about how much information the department held about the amount of lost learning time due to flooding and heat stress. The document came back saying that, if no adaptation measures were implemented, it was predicted that, in 2050, eight days a year could be lost due to extreme heat levels. That is a lot. It is also quite a long way ahead, and therefore there is every possibility of the can being kicked down the road. That would be unwise, as so much in the climate change world is changing much faster than we anticipated, and things are already happening now.

That document said that, on the basis of the EA analysis, 20% and 34% respectively of primary and secondary school buildings were at high risk, and 37% and 59% of them were at medium risk of surface water flooding right now. So we are in a position where we know some, but not all, the impacts. We are indeed lacking a lot of knowledge about the impacts of heat and what is an okay temperature to expect school kids to learn in and teachers to teach in.

My amendment would require the Government to produce a “safe and resilient schools” plan that lays out how existing school buildings will be consistent with net-zero emissions and become resistant not just to climate change but to the flooding and overheating that are the by-products of climate change, which is obviously why we are pursuing net zero. Importantly, it would change existing government guidance, introduced by the previous Government to apply to new school buildings, so that they should be designed for a 2 degree rise—we are already at nearly 1.5 degrees—and future-proofed for a 4 degree rise in temperatures, while also being built to adapt to climate risks. These two things seem fairly simple and, I hope, doable. Given the current situation, which is evident from the Government’s own papers, I would find it really hard to accept that these are not real and expected risks that need to be addressed.

I quickly draw attention to a report on about 60 London schools that was carried out a couple of years ago at the behest of the mayor. It looked at what tailored actions they could take. Of the schools surveyed, 93% reported overheating as an issue that they had experienced in the last couple of summers; 78% said that overheating had a significant impact on learning; and 43% experienced this multiple times, or continuously through their summer term. It is great that something was done and that these schools now know what they need to do, but these measures have not actually been installed because, unfortunately, they cost money. This was just 60 schools out of the 30,000 in England. We need a nationwide plan. It is absolutely not the case that one size fits all. I am afraid that this is a case where difference is important.

We also need to realise that air conditioning can never be the future. You cannot use excessive heating in the winter and excessive air-con in the summer, because we cannot afford the energy. We are in an energy transition, and that is not a workable long-term solution. But you can do a lot, such as shading windows from the outside, having natural ventilation and having many more trees—which is a good thing in lots of other respects—planted around schools. It would be a capital investment into our publicly owned infrastructure and would make schools resilient. We also need to think about what the costs of inaction are: lost days at school.

I have three specific questions. Would it be possible to ask schools a list of questions about what their experiences have been of, say, this summer’s unnaturally warm weather? Could the Minister take on the responsibility for providing data on the department’s assessment of school plans to help schools transition? I know that we are asking a lot, but this is going to come and bite us very soon. Finally, has the department at any time considered moving exams away from the hottest moment of the year, because that is pretty tough for the kids?

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Boycott Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lady Barran and to associate myself with Amendment 104 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, whom it is a pleasure to follow.

The Welfare Food Regulations 1996 lay out in astonishing detail the importance of milk to those who were entitled to it for the early years. While there are different regulatory regimes in Scotland and the rest of Great Britain, it is clear that certain children in certain circumstances are entitled to dried milk or fresh milk in prescribed portions per week, be it according to age; to those whose families are on financial assistance for low income; to the Healthy Start, which would include expectant mothers and those with children otherwise under four—and, of course, some people of any age, including children, but not necessarily children, with certain physical and mental difficulties.

I think it is common ground on all sides of this House that the provision of milk as part of a healthy diet is a good thing. But the regulations provide for this milk to be dispensed, if I can use that word, in maternity and healthcare centres, as part of the National Health Service, but also in other welfare and food distribution centres. But the world has changed, and these settings are no longer the only places where people access help.

The NHS, which may work from nine to five, or a food distribution centre, which may open for only a few mornings a week, are not necessarily the only places nowadays where people can access the help they need. Those settings are just not as thick on the ground as they used to be at times that are convenient to families.

I do not deny the good work of those settings, but others are available under the same regulations, and some of them are even paid for by the state. My noble friend Lady Barran laid out the importance of childminders and childminder agencies as a part of the mix that helps provide time and space for families to get into work so they can earn and improve their family circumstances, with the flexibility to take different jobs, which may be available on a part-time, out-of-hours or seasonal basis.

These settings—the childminder agencies—are relevant. They are local, flexible and professional, and we have heard that they are regulated. But for some reason, they are not trusted by these regulations to dispense milk in liquid form or in dried powder. It just serves no purpose to exclude them. This is why these amendments are so important: to exclude the most accessible settings from the ability to provide milk and other healthy foods is not just bad for them, it is bad for the children.

I cannot understand for the life of me why one setting is good and the other is bad. But there is another string to this argument: that it is bad not only for the children and the settings themselves, but for the economy. There are 1.8 million dairy cows in this country, with a herd size average of 225, and that number has doubled in the last 50 years since 1975.

Significant parts of the West Country are devoted to dairying—milk production, cheese production and so forth. I see my noble friend Lady Williams sitting in front of me on the Front Bench. She is from the Cheshire plains and will know better than anybody the importance of the work dairy farmers do, rising early to milk and care for their cow herds, come rain or shine, suffering as they have in the last two months a 30% reduction in the price of liquid milk from the dairies.

It is not just the children who need all the help they can get; it is our dairy farmers too. While this is, of course, a subsidiary point to the main thrust of Amendment 98 in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran, it is a consideration. The main thrust is that we must stop this arbitrary division that forms gaps between different sorts of settings, saying that only the NHS can be trusted to dispense milk, and that childminders and the CMAs are not to be trusted.

If we really have the interests of the child at heart, we need to have as many settings as possible that can dispense good food and milk and associated products, at times that are convenient for the busy lives families lead, rather than just straitjacketing them into the nine to five and thinking that is good enough.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I support both amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in particular Amendment 113 on the school food improvement scheme. I am incredibly glad to see how many steps the Government are taking, but there are still things we need to work on. The noble Baroness referred to Professor Defeyter’s work on the finances and how, with big schools versus small schools, a lot of the money gets lost. It also happens with councils that are so cash-strapped that they sometimes take some of the money.

We are still living in a country where we have a postcode lottery on food. Some schools do amazing jobs with limited resources and some schools really do not. Nobody can now dispute the fact that the free school lunch, or any school lunch, is incredibly important to children. Yet we hear too often about schools that allow only 20 minutes for lunch, in which time you are meant to play, make a call, go to the toilet and have lunch, which is clearly going to be seen as a secondary part of a school.

It is also secondary in that the school catering departments at the moment get very little training. I wonder whether the Minister is aware of a scheme in the department being run by Chefs in Schools and a lot of philanthropic organisations to actively train chefs to go into schools and work with them to improve the quality. For the same amount of money, you can have really good quality and transform children’s lives.

Finally, nursery is equally important in getting kids eating the right stuff right from the beginning. I absolutely support that we need milk, but children also get fed there and those meals tend to fall outside of anything right now, as far as I can see. I would be interested to know what the Government will do.

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

My Lords, the amendments in the third group cover free school meals, the nursery milk scheme, the Healthy Start scheme and school food. Ensuring that every child has access to nutritious food and support is fundamental to their health, development and ability to learn. We know that good nutrition starts early and that simple measures, whether access to milk or balanced school meals, can make a lasting difference.

I turn to government Amendments 111 and 112. Last year the Government announced that from September 2026, every child in a household receiving universal credit will be entitled to free school meals. This decisive action will lift 100,000 children across England out of poverty and save families around £500 per child each year. The amendments will enshrine this crucial commitment in law and ensure its successful delivery.

A child is currently eligible for free school meals if they attend a state-funded school in England, their household is in receipt of universal credit and the household’s income is less than £7,400. Government Amendment 112 creates a new category of free school meals, to be known as expanded free school meals, which will apply to that cohort of children in receipt of universal credit but with a household income greater than £7,400. This will ensure that free school lunches are provided on request to all pupils from households in receipt of universal credit and that state-funded schools in England will be under a duty to provide meals to those eligible children.

We will support over half a million more children in this way. Providing the most disadvantaged children with a healthy lunch each school day will help secure their education and improve their future prospects.

Government Amendment 111 will deliver the practical implementation of the free school meals expansion. The Department for Education relies on the provisions of the Education Act 2005 to process income and benefits data from other government departments so that it can check and confirm a child’s eligibility for free school meals. The scope of this power is, however, limited. This amendment will amend the 2005 Act to enable the department to identify whether a child is eligible under the current free school meals criteria or the expanded free school meals criteria and then communicate this to local authorities, parents and schools so that they in turn may determine whether a child is also eligible for other education benefits and funding.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Boycott Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 28th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I have Amendments 114 and 118 in this group on the cost of school uniforms. This issue is about far more than clothing; it goes to the heart of the cost of living crisis. It affects children’s dignity and well-being, and, ultimately, their ability to learn and succeed in school. For too many families, the start of the school year is no longer a moment of optimism; it is about anxiety. Parents dread opening the uniform price list, knowing that compliance is mandatory and flexibility is limited. Branded blazers, logoed jumpers, PE kits and specialist items are often required from a single supplier, with costs running to hundreds of pounds per child, payable up front, when household budgets are already under severe strain.

The evidence is clear. Research commissioned by the Department for Education shows that the average cost of school uniforms and PE kits is close to £400 per child, rising to over £440 for secondary school pupils. These are not trivial sums. For families with two or three children, the cost can exceed £1,000 in a single year. For parents who are on low incomes, with insecure jobs or reliant on benefits, these costs are simply not manageable. The reality for many households is stark. Parents report cutting back on food, delaying rent or utility payments, or taking on high street debt, simply to ensure children are not penalised for incorrect uniforms. Some skip meals so their children can attend school properly dressed. Others are humiliated into asking schools for help or exemptions, knowing that support is inconsistent and often discriminatory.

The consequences fall most heavily on children. When families cannot afford the required uniforms, pupils are sent home, isolated from lessons or disciplined because their clothing does not meet school rules. Others attend school embarrassed and anxious that they stand out or are judged for their family’s circumstances. This sense of shame undermines confidence and damages well-being. This matters not only for children’s mental health but for their education itself. There is strong evidence that stress and financial insecurity are linked to poor attendance, reduced concentration and low attainment. A child worried about being reprimanded for their uniform is not focused on learning. Excessive uniform costs become a barrier to education rather than supporting it.

We must also recognise that this burden is not evenly distributed. Families in areas already facing high levels of deprivation, including parts of the north-east, the Midlands and coastal communities, report significantly greater difficulties affording school uniforms. High uniform costs in these areas compound existing disadvantage and widen attainment gaps that the Government rightly say they wish to close. A system in which affordability varies by postcode is neither fair nor defensible.

That is why my first amendment proposes a cap on the total cost of branded uniform items, rather than limiting the number. The item-based cap is insufficient. Single branded blazers can cost £50 or more and a logoed PE kit even more. What matters to families is not how many items are required but how much they are forced to pay. The clear financial cap is fairer, more transparent and more effective, while allowing schools flexibility.

My second amendment addresses the continued application of VAT on compulsory school uniforms, particularly for those of a certain size. In effect, this is a tax on clothing that children are legally required to wear to access education. The zero rating for school uniforms up to the age of 16 would provide immediate, targeted relief, particularly for families with multiple children and for those on the lowest incomes. These amendments do not undermine discipline, standards or school identity; uniforms can foster belonging and pride. But no child should feel ashamed or excluded because their parents cannot afford an overpriced item with a logo. If we are serious about supporting families, improving well-being and narrowing attainment gaps, I urge noble Lords to support these amendments.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

I very much support all the amendments around trying to make uniforms more affordable, but I want to speak about a health time bomb that we are sitting on, much in the way that we spoke about smoking some years ago, or ultra-processed food. It is the whole question about PFAS in our systems: in everything we eat and touch, but in particular, in this case, in school uniforms. Uniforms that are made from fabrics that contain PFAS constantly contact your skin and the results and the emerging evidence are now incontrovertible. I also support Amendment 119A from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about the health, generally, of uniforms.

Forever chemicals, as they are commonly referred to, are a group of over 10,000 chemicals that exist over many products. We call them “forever chemicals” partly because they are so widespread and partly because, so far, they do not appear to break down. They are relatively new, so we do not know whether they are going to break down in 100 years. Right now, though, they are not breaking down. The quickest way for any of us here to find out whether we have them in our system is to get the test, give a drop of blood and find out what is in your body.

Serious evidence is emerging. Yesterday morning I signed an NDA with Netflix in order to watch its newest documentary on the question of forever chemicals. In particular, this was around children, babies and fertility, but it obviously stretched to the wider implications for all of us, and in particular our children, because they have grown up in the plastic era. There is now evidence from Denmark to suggest that prenatal exposure is associated with reduced IQ scores in seven year-old children, and in Germany, there is new research showing that PFAS is significantly associated with reduced tetanus, rubella and diphtheria immunity. So it has effects all over the place. We must remember that these chemicals have been put into systems: not just our food and what we touch, or what we make things out of. There has been no FSA approval and there has been no FDA approval—it has just happened. All these chemicals are made by oil companies; plastic is a product of oil. Saudi Aramco is now the largest producer of plastic in the world, and production is growing as I speak.

Kids are thought to be particularly vulnerable; they have been found to have higher concentrations of PFAS in their blood than adults. One route of exposure is through the skin, and this brings me to the subject of school uniforms. They are often used in clothes to provide what they call “extra qualities”. So, if you get clothing that is “stain resistant” or “easy iron”—which, of course, is very tempting to someone on a time budget—these qualities in fact last for very little time. As you wash the clothes, they disappear, and then those chemicals end up in our watercourses. They are non-essential. There is no cost implication whatever to using them, apart from a gimmicky bit of advertising. I do not feel that the Minister really addressed this in Committee. Among other things, she said that

“the UK product safety laws require all consumer products to be safe, and manufacturers must ensure the safety of products before they are placed on the market”.—[Official Report, 3/7/25; col. 907.]

Turning this around, could the Minister update the House on whether the Government believe that the now overwhelming body of evidence that is emerging that PFAS is causing detrimental health outcomes is incorrect? Do the Government believe that the approach of our close neighbours, such as France and most of Europe, which have banned the use of over 10,000 substances, is in vain? At present, neither our product safety laws nor UK REACH is preventing harmful products being placed on the market. They are not working to protect children or adults.

In the summer, the Minister in Committee said there was work

“across government to help assess levels of PFAS occurring in the environment, their sources and potential risks, to inform policy and regulatory approaches”.—[Official Report, 3/7/25; col. 906.]

That was quite a long time ago. What work is being done, or are we just acknowledging a problem and not doing anything?

I appreciate that this is largely the responsibility of Defra, but it seems that our current approach is waiting for this disaster to happen. Would it not be more prudent to take steps at least to make schools and parents aware of this growing risk? An example of this is in Jersey—I appreciate that it is not part of the UK, but I happen to have been born there—where people are being treated with bloodletting, essentially leeching without leeches, because firefighting foam got into the watercourses and drinking water and filled them with PFAS. The state has taken some steps to reduce that, but, even then, our response was glacial.

I was disappointed that the revised environmental improvement plan, which was published before Christmas, said almost nothing about PFAS, but that the Government were

“investigating whether to restrict other PFAS in fire-fighting foams”.

I do not understand why we need to expend resources investigating what should be incredibly obvious. There was nothing about PFAS from other sources, and, unironically, the following paragraph said that we were a leader on chemical management. That is hard to believe. If this is the only work that the Government have done since Committee, I put it to the House that it is inadequate.

However, we have a chance here to make some small progress. This amendment would ban the use of PFAS in school uniforms. Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause would set the limit for residual PFAS and textiles to

“no more than 50 mg”.

This would not allow producers to use a small amount of PFAS, because it is so prevalent in the water systems and in all our systems that you cannot—as was confirmed in the Netflix documentary that I watched last night—get the level back to zero. Noble Lords should find this fact alone really disturbing and I hope that it serves as an impetus. Our close neighbours in France and Denmark have banned the use of PFAS in all clothes, not just kids’ clothes. Indeed, in France’s case, it is banned much more widely, and there is an expectation that an EU ban will come quite soon.

While my amendment has been drafted within the confines of the Bill that we are debating, I urge the Minister to encourage her colleagues to match the EU’s approach, which is following the OECD’s definition of over 10,000 substances as PFAS and banning their use, rather than inventing our own definition and a new list. I accept that there is much about PFAS that we do not know for certain, but, as I say, I watched a Netflix documentary on this last night and, without a doubt, there is hard and fast evidence linking chemicals in our blood to declining birth rates, falling sperm counts and all sorts of other very complex medical situations.

I therefore ask for two things in the near term. First, can we change the statutory guidance that schools follow around considering

“sustainability and ethical supply chains, as well as engaging with parents and pupils when tendering for uniform contracts”.—[Official Report, 3/7/25; col. 907.]

Could something more specific be added to that guidance, so that the school uniform providers that are invited to tender must provide details of whether their garments contain PFAS? We are not saying “Remove it”: just put it on the label. Can a recommendation that schools aim to source school uniforms without PFAS possibly be included? If this is not possible, and they go ahead and contract a supplier whose uniform items contain PFAS, can those suppliers be required to label items so that schools and parents can make an informed decision? That is not going to cost us more money, and it is not just about saying that everything must be made of cotton. Cotton is obviously better, but cotton gets given stain-removal qualities and so on, which can also be bad. But this would put the responsibility fair and square on the producer.

Secondly, can the Government, at the very least, urgently consult on a wholesale ban of PFAS? If we do not, we risk becoming the dumping ground in Europe for all the school uniforms and other garments that the European Union is going to start rejecting and is starting to reject from now. That would be a very bad place to be.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who has powerfully made the case for Amendment 119. She referred to the Netflix documentary that we have not yet seen. I am going to go back a little further to a review article that came out in January last year, titled Effects of Early-life PFAS Exposure on Child Neurodevelopment: A Review of the Evidence and Research Gaps. It looked at 35 studies, most of which were in the previous five years. It found subtle but potentially very significant impacts of low-level exposure on population-wide neurodevelopment. What does that actually mean? It means reduced cognitive development and language development in infants and increased behavioural issues such as hyperactivity in childhood.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Boycott Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, my Amendment 243 deals with climate mitigation and adaptation. It would make statutory existing government guidance that new school buildings must be both net zero in operation and adapted to 2 degrees of warming, and would require the Government to produce a safe and resilient schools plan, laying out how existing school buildings would meet these targets.

One issue is that the Government do not seem to know the scale of the problem—for instance, the department does not hold information about the amount of lost learning time due to flooding. We have done a bit of research on the impact of extreme weather recently. Storm Chandra in late January caused 80 schools to close or partially close in Devon, Dorset and Somerset. Over 400 schools closed in Northern Ireland on 27 January due to weather, and Storm Goretti caused at least 278 schools in northern Scotland to close. That adds up to hundreds of lost school days across the UK. Of course we expect some of this—we cannot get around the snow—but my point is that weather events are increasing, and we could risk losing a lot of learning days, not to mention the soggy books and school equipment that are left behind.

The UK has no statutory reporting system, and what data exists is only at the local authority level; it is primarily for parents, not for anything strategic. Can the Minister commit that the department will start to track this centrally so that we have some kind of usable data?

The wider issue is that we lack a plan for how to deal with what is coming down the road. Everyone knows that climate change is getting worse, and we need a climate adaptation plan for schools. It needs to come from central government, otherwise we risk creating a multitiered system, where some schools do better and some do not. Probably, almost inevitably, it will be the poorest schools that end up being closed when there is a bad flooding event.

We have a template to follow; a few years ago, the Mayor of London commissioned a report which tailored plans for 60 schools. Many of the solutions were very simple, such as flood doors, shading and ventilation windows, which could be deployed widely and cheaply. The London report found that 93% of schools in the capital reported overheating as an issue, 78% said that it had a significant impact on learning and 43% experienced it multiple times or continuously through the summer term. Yes, London is relatively dry or hot and there will be different issues, largely flooding, in areas like the West Country. But the climate science shows that we are getting hotter summers and wetter winters, and that will only increase.

I know that there will be costs but, as with all things connected to our changing weather system, it is much cheaper to act now than later. As a starting point, will the Minister consider asking schools about this as part of annual surveys, and commit that the department will assess any plans that schools have made and issue general overall guidance on what to do? On the basis of these bits of information, I suspect that it will become abundantly clear that what we need is a Department for Education led safe and resilient schools plan.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking to my Amendment 243A, I declare my interests as the director of the Free Speech Union and a member of the Knowledge Schools Trust.

The amendment would stop safeguarding policies and procedures in schools being misused for political purposes, a prime example being the recent cancellation of a talk by the Labour MP Damien Egan at a secondary school in his Bristol constituency, on the grounds that allowing a vice-chair of the Labour Friends of Israel to speak posed a safeguarding risk to children. The Bristol branch of the National Education Union said on its Facebook page, after Mr Egan was no-platformed:

“We celebrate this cancellation as a win for safeguarding”.


In another Facebook post, the Bristol branch of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign also described Mr Egan’s ban as a win for safeguarding.

At the Free Speech Union, we have come across numerous examples of school safeguarding policies being weaponised by political activists to silence their opponents, whether visiting speakers or members of staff. For instance, the Free Speech Union recently took on the case of a teacher in Henley who was referred to the local authority designated officer—LADO, the official in charge of investigating safeguarding concerns—because he showed his A-level politics class some Trump campaign videos from the 2024 presidential election. The teacher was accused of causing his A-level students, aged 17 and 18, “emotional harm”. In one document, local officials in charge of child protection suggested that the showing of the Trump campaign videos could amount to a “hate crime”. Incidentally, he also showed the students in his A-level politics class some of Kamala Harris’s campaign videos, but those did not raise any safeguarding concerns.

In another Free Speech Union case, a teacher at a primary school in Tower Hamlets was sacked and referred to his local child protection board after telling off some Muslim boys for washing their feet in the sinks in the boys’ lavatories. I could go on.

Safeguarding policies and procedures were put in place to protect children from abusive parents and sexual predators, yet the weaponisation of these policies by political activists risks local authority designated officers and local safeguarding boards not taking genuine concerns seriously. That in turn endangers children’s safety. It is hard to think of a more cynical form of political activism—but, of course it has the desired effect. What MP who is sympathetic to Israel in its war with Hamas will risk arranging a visit to a school in his or her constituency knowing, ahead of time, that they could end up being no-platformed and branded a safeguarding risk to children?

Amendment 243A would put a stop to this mischief. It says:

“When making safeguarding assessments or investigating safeguarding complaints in relation to teachers, visitors or volunteers in schools and other educational settings, no account may be taken of the political views expressed or presented by the subject of that safeguarding assessment or complaint, provided those views are not … unworthy of respect in a democratic society … in conflict with the fundamental rights of others, or … affiliated with any political party, group or organisation which is proscribed for the purposes of the Terrorism Act 2000”.


We urgently need to stop this cynical weaponisation of policies and procedures that were put in place to protect children from predators and abusers, not unfashionable political opinions.