Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Morgan of Cotes Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 1st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate on such important topics. I declare my interest as chair of the national Careers & Enterprise Company. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord; I agreed with his comments and those made by all the speakers so far. Unsurprisingly, I will start with Clauses 47 and 50, in relation to academies.

I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and my namesake, the other Baroness Morgan, who exhorted us to remember that we should look for a debate about quality, rigour and standards in our schools. I think we are going to have a good debate in your Lordships’ House. With the expertise here, I hope the House is going to help to improve the Bill and ask the right questions of the Government in relation to both academies and maintained schools.

In my experience, the challenges of maintaining two systems are in relation to both funding and accountability. One of the questions we will explore as part of Clause 50 and school improvement is: if academisation is not the answer in particular situations, then what is? How is school improvement, which has, after all, been the holy grail of Governments over many decades, going to be achieved and who does that most affectively? As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has just said, we should want freedoms and for the national curriculum to be a minimum standard, but as, we have also heard, a number of specialist schools feel strongly that the national curriculum is not right for them.

As the Minister said at the beginning, we have the curriculum review at the moment. Former Education Secretaries and Ministers are very good at speculating about what goes on in the classroom. Even better than that, we love talking about what is happening in the curriculum and what should be taught; we all have views on that. We await the forthcoming review with great interest. That will be relevant to the curriculum that we want all our schools to follow.

On specialist schools, I and, I think, a number of noble Lords have been written to by various specialist school providers. One is Aldridge Education, which said in relation to UTCs and studio schools:

“In offering choice, they bring relevance to education for thousands more students than we would otherwise succeed with. It isn’t lowering educational ambition; it is offering breadth and depth in a way that would not otherwise be available to learners in this country”.


I will move on, given the time available.

In relation to schools inspections, I would be very interested to explore the continuing role of the Independent Schools Inspectorate, having had recent experience of it where it completely failed to interrogate properly the governance of a school. Governance is often overlooked when we debate education policy. It is hugely important. I wonder whether its time has perhaps come, whether it is to work ever more closely with Ofsted or even to merge with it, and perhaps we will debate that.

In relation to home education, I really support the provisions in the Bill. Frankly, when we were in government, we should have done more to know exactly which children were home-educated and who had chosen to opt out of the school system. We heard of the tragic case in Norfolk that the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, talked about, and sadly there will be others. Of course, the difficulty with this will be that difficult examples—often some religious schools—mean that the option of reform is not taken when it should be. I really welcome the Government’s proposals.

Finally, in relation to well-being, I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is back in her seat. We worked well together on the Online Safety Act. One of the greatest dangers, as she outlined, to our children’s well-being is undoubtedly the online world and the internet. I remain slightly unconvinced by banning phones in schools—there is guidance available and schools can do it—but I am absolutely willing to listen to the evidence the noble Baroness will bring to this debate. Honestly, if we feel this strongly about it, then we need to ban a lot of apps and smartphones for under-16s—luckily, my son is 17, so I will not be having any opposition at home. One of the great challenges in relation to teachers and safety in the classrooms—and I would be interested to hear other noble Lords’ views on this—is misogyny, much of it fuelled online. That is where the opportunity to limit exposure to phones and what is on them is very important. We are going to have a set of good debates, and I hope the Minister will welcome them.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Morgan of Cotes Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 10th September 2025 Lords Chamber

I absolutely support, as a matter of my own faith, working-class education, improvements in working-class education and vocational education, but that is not the issue here. Due to the phrasing of the Bill, the very foundation of the way of life of the Hasidic community in terms of their education is threatened. They are in a very great state of anxiety in relation to this. I do not think anything in this amendment undermines in any way the general structure of the Bill. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that I think it gives us an opportunity to discuss how to reach an appropriate, negotiated settlement that can put the well-being of the child absolutely at the centre and the safeguarding of children absolutely and unconditionally in place. The quality of the home education has been really attended to— I can bear witness to this from within the community. All they are asking is for a pause in this, so that they can express their anxieties and their fears and, as “the Lord of Stamford Hill”, I felt it was appropriate to represent those concerns.

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I want to speak briefly in overall support of Amendment 427C, which has just been so well moved and spoken to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, and the noble Lord, Lord Glasman. I support the thrust of the Bill and what the Government are doing in these sections. I suppose, in a way, my remarks are directed not just towards the Minister but to her officials who will be listening. I would encourage them to engage with the thrust of this clause: if this is not necessarily the right wording, then something along these lines.

Those of us who have had the privilege of serving as Ministers in the Department for Education—I was going to say “served time”, but I do not quite mean that—know that these are difficult issues and have become more complicated. While we have heard a particular focus on a particular religious group, I know from previous conversations, in relation to both yeshivas and other religious institutions, that there is always a reason why there should be an exception, yet we also know that there will be those who seek to subvert any exception for the wrong reasons and it is the young people who will lose out.

What attracts me to this particular amendment is the fact that the local authority would be involved in terms not only of registration but of safeguarding assurance. I have some concern: we do not want to go back to 1944, when the world was very different—we are in 2025 and we know a lot more about different institutions—but, overall, as we know and have heard set out so powerfully, there are many communities who want both to comply with the law and to have their practices and customs respected. I hope that, even if it is not with this amendment, discussions behind the scenes before we get to the next stage of the Bill can find a way through so that these provisions are able to go through with the support of the whole House.

[Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)]

My Lords, I oppose Amendment 427C and the gist of the speeches and comments that we have heard so far. In doing so, I tread with great care, because I realise the history, the sensitivities, and the passion and commitment of those people whose lives would be involved. I do not pretend to be part of that community or to criticise it in any way. I am very proud that our country welcomes people of all faiths. I have always been a defender of faith schools and served for a while on the board of Church of England schools. As a Minister, I argued—sometimes with great difficulty within my own party—for continuing with faith schools. That is the background I come from, but I cannot support this amendment.

Over the past 12 months, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, I have had the privilege of meeting young adults, some up to the age of 30 and some in their late teens, who have been students at yeshivas and educated within the system, living within the community. To be honest, they would not recognise the description that the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, has just given. They would not describe their own education and their own lives in that way. So I think our starting point should be that, as with any school or any community, there is a risk to children if we do not protect them in an orderly way and in the way that we should.

I am not opposed to this community being able to continue to educate in its own faith. Why would we not wish it to do that when we allow every other faith to do the same? But that is possible already. There are Haredi-registered schools where parents can send their children. It is not the case that if you close down the yeshivas, no one can have a school based on this faith. They can—and it is in the registered sector. What I have a problem with is the yeshiva. This is where I oppose Amendment 427C. My argument for doing so is very straightforward: if you are there at 8 am and you leave at 6 pm, it is a school. Whatever you do at home afterwards is not full-time education. If you are there at 8 am and leave at 6 pm, it does not in any way have that balance of education that I think we want for everyone.

I understand that it is difficult to get the balance right and decide where to draw the dividing lines. It is not easy and there is an element of compromise, but what I have heard from the people who have spoken so far is that we all welcome the Bill and we all want things to be regulated to protect children—but not this religion, not this faith, not this group. I cannot buy into that. Every child, including children in this community, deserves to be safeguarded and to have a broad and balanced education, which we are all signed up to. Unless you register it, I cannot see how this will happen.

Where I think the debate comes in is the nature of the registration and the consultation with the community. I urge the Minister, as I know she will— I suspect the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, spoke with her already on this—to try to get an understanding and, where possible, to fit our wish to regulate to protect children with the rights of the community to continue to educate its children in its faith. I would not want to stop that, but I would not want to support anything that excluded children from this community from being safeguarded in the way that children from other communities are.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Morgan of Cotes Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 28th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I want to talk briefly about this group of amendments. While I recognise the passion with which the previous three speakers have spoken on CEO remuneration, I do not think that is the main problem in the education system. If we want really good people to head up multi-academy trusts and to do one of the most important jobs in this country, which is to educate the next generation, we should pay them. If that means that the Prime Minister is underpaid, we should be having a separate debate to recognise his leadership and that of anyone else who holds that position.

I want to go back to Amendment 193 and echo the thanks from the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley. I am not sure that it wins the prize for the longest set of amendments, but it is perhaps the speediest set of government amendments. We had this debate in Committee, and voices from all sides of the House recognised that putting in place an inspection regime for the proprietors of multi-academy trusts was overdue. It makes me suspect that the department had these amendments somewhere ready to go when an opportunity presented itself, because we all spend a lot of our time asking the Government to make amendments and are told, “Not now, not this Bill, not quite yet”. Indeed, I had a conversation with the Minister like that just yesterday morning—though it feels like longer ago. We will return to that next week, but I am impressed with how fast these amendments have been proposed. That, of course, means that, as we have heard, because of the hour we are debating this, they will not get all the scrutiny we would like. That is why I think that Amendment 193D from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about further consultation or work before these provisions come into effect, would be extremely worth while.

I also want to echo one of the other questions. The question that has been put to me by those from multi-academy trusts is: what is the relationship between this inspection regime and the inspection of individual schools? While there are obviously some large academy trust chains, there are also some much smaller ones, and if they are trying to deal, rightly, with the inspection, particularly the first inspection, of a multi-academy trust proprietorship, what is the relationship between schools and how do we make sure that schools and multi-academy trusts do not feel they are being endlessly inspected and never allowed to get on with the job that we all want them to do, which is educating well the next generation?

I want to speak in support of Amendment 194 as well, because I was not able to speak on Clause 51 in the Committee. This is about academy sponsorship. I know from what we have just heard that not everybody is a fan of academies; I am—I am relentless in my support for them. I think we have finally seen the self-reinforcing, self-improving school system we want in this country. In many places, academy sponsorship is the only option; I am not sure what the other option is. Amendment 194 has nobly attempted to put in place an answer if academy sponsorship is not available. I would like to hear the Minister’s reasons for persisting with the view that good academy sponsors should not be the default, because that is what the academy chains I speak to feel most passionately about. Those that are successful want to make sure that other schools can share in that success.

Finally, it will come as no surprise that I will oppose Amendment 197. As I say, there are issues we should be debating in education other than recognising the enormous contribution made by senior leaders in education—in this case, it is perhaps the heads of multi-academy trust chains—but I would much rather we talk about the quality of the education that our young people are getting than anything else which is a distraction, as Amendment 197 is.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Morgan of Cotes Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

This amendment has not come out of the blue but has been marinating for 10 years and has been put forward by two House of Lords Select Committees. I am persisting with it because I believe that the Government are missing a great opportunity. As a society, we should believe in the ties that bind us together. We should make more of them, and for that to happen we need a much clearer and more rounded formulation than we have at the moment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 208 in this group. It is a pleasure to follow the noble and right reverend Lord. While I might not agree with everything he said, the debate on British values was an extremely common theme of my time in the Department for Education. It is a commentary on the world we live in that we now need to define what we mean by democracy, but I do not disagree with the point the noble and right reverend Lord made. I thank other noble Lords who added their names to Amendment 208: the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.

As this amendment was debated in Committee, I will not take too long to introduce it. But I also do not think that I really need to convince the Government Front Bench, given that, just before Christmas, we had the arrival of the Government’s long-awaited violence against women and girls strategy. It was good to see the commitment:

“The Minister for Skills is exploring the most effective route to make Relationships and Sex Education … mandatory for young people under 18 in further education colleges”.


Unknown to many—including, presumably, some noble Lords in this House—and rather extraordinarily, hundreds of thousands of young people aged 16 to 18 are currently excluded from the benefits of relationships and sex education if they happen to be in further education colleges. This is despite the fact that this group experiences, for example, the highest rates of domestic abuse. An estimated 608,000 students aged 16 to 18 study in either further education or sixth-form colleges in England. Although further education colleges can deliver relationships and sex education on a voluntary basis, provision is inconsistent, unmonitored and often with scant training or support for those who are asked to teach it.

The campaign has the support of the Association of Colleges. I am also grateful to the Let Me Know young people advocates, Tabitha and Angela, who spoke so movingly at a briefing last week for Members of this House on why the extension of this education is needed for their age group. I also pay tribute to the efforts of Faustine Petron of Make It Mandatory, a survivor and formidable campaigner who identified the gap in education for this age group, having been unsupported during her own experience of relationship abuse. Some 105,000 people have now backed her petition.

Recent research from the Institute for Addressing Strangulation shows that almost half—43%—of sexually active 16 and 17 year-olds have been strangled during sex, and 70% of young people surveyed by the Children’s Commissioner have seen porn routinely featuring rape, strangulation and incest. This House and the other place have rightly been introducing, discussing and amending legislation on issues such as nudification apps, violent online pornography, harmful and abusive content across social media, and the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. That is why, at the same time, we must support the creation of space in the curriculum for all 16 to 18 year-olds—the very age group most likely to be having to deal with the reality of these and other relevant issues—so that they receive a proper education on these matters. As the young people I met last week said, for them, these issues are not theoretical. The more than 600,000 young people in further education colleges have as much right to that curriculum as the rest of their peers.

I am grateful to the Minister for her engagement on this issue. I shall listen very carefully to what she says. As I say, I think she agrees with the overall thrust of this amendment. If this is not the right Bill, which I think reflects the conversation that she and I had, I ask her to say which one would be, and, if one of those who support this change were fortunate enough to secure the ability to bring forward some legislation sooner than the next Department for Education Bill, I would be grateful if the Government would indicate their support for it.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 220, relating to the guidance for schools on gender-questioning children, which is still long overdue and which I think we have to ensure happens as quickly as possible. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for having pursued this and for tabling her amendments.

This is incredibly important and necessary to clarify issues for parents, for teachers in understanding and knowing exactly how they might deal with the difficult questions around gender-questioning children, and of course for children themselves. Obviously, this relates to some of the controversy and the failure to issue the EHRC code in relation to the guidance coming from the Supreme Court judgment, but it stands on its own terms.

When I talk to teachers and parents, there is still a lot of confusion about the demands of the Equality Act 2010’s gender reassignment protected characteristic and how one deals with that, and duties in relation to it, and how that might clash with, for example, safeguarding or free speech. That leaves teachers exposed and unclear.

I want to refer to what it feels like for parents who, across the UK, have been shocked to discover what their children have been taught or told in classrooms and have sounded the alarm on some teachers covering highly sexualised age-inappropriate content with young pupils and, in some schools, even affirming children in their gender identity—that is, social transitioning—without the consent or knowledge of their parents. It is understandable that that has caused alarm. For three to four year-old children just starting to learn to tell fact from fiction, the difference between make-believe games with friends pretending to be princesses, playing families or whatever and telling children at this stage that a person can literally change from one sex to another can be hugely confusing. I understand that this is not the Government’s intention and that they want to clarify it, but that is why I think the guidance should be urgently introduced and explained to schools and the Government should make clear what is and is not permissible.

Too often, it is left up to grass-roots activists otherwise. Recently, an article hit the media about a group of women—one a retired midwife, another a retired solicitor and another a mum of two—from a group called Protect and Teach who said that many schools do not have the appropriate safeguards in place. They are especially worried about outside organisations being invited in to effectively teach children, some as young as primary school, about inclusiveness, which might sound harmless until you look at the kinds of teaching materials used by these third-party organisations that research shows have very flawed policies, muddling up sex in the Equality Act 2010 with sexual identity and gender.

That is one of the reasons why we have concerns. Some of the work the group did, for example, showed that 75% of Church of England schools had problematic policies in relation to, for example, anti-bullying policies, which are not directly related, but practically all the material used in those policies focused on transgender identity, not bullying in any other way. The message of this was that affirmation was the way forward and young people needed to be kept safe from polarised debates, which would indicate a one size fits all. So I am straightforwardly saying that we need clear guidance. The Government must issue that clear guidance. Schools need help with this. It is not easy—nobody is saying it is—but what we cannot do is just leave it open.

I will make one final point on Amendment 206 from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. I commend him for doggedly and persistently pushing this amendment, which I have heard a number of times. I commend his celebration of British values, because I think that is important, and I have said that before, although I do not agree with the content of all the British values listed. The “respect for the environment” paragraph is particularly contentious and weak: I have written “twaddle” here. That is probably not a parliamentary word, but I have written it down.

The section on democracy includes that the Government should be accountable to Parliament, which is something we could learn a lesson from. The Government are not always accountable to Parliament—there are far too many Henry VIII clauses, in my view. It also notes that democracy, as a value, should mean regular elections, which would suggest that you should not cancel them, as we are witnessing at the moment. It talks about the importance of the rule of law, which immediately reminded me of what is happening to jury trials. It finally says that “freedom” should include freedom of thought and conscience, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly and association. As somebody going through the Crime and Policing Bill, I did think it was perhaps worth sending the British values amendment of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, to the people pushing that Bill. I assure noble Lords that freedom of thought, expression, assembly and association are not safe under that Bill.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Morgan of Cotes Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes]

209: After Clause 63, insert the following new Clause—
“Allergy safety provisions in schools(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, all schools in England must—(a) adopt a school allergy and anaphylaxis policy,(b) obtain individual healthcare and anaphylaxis action plans for all pupils with allergies,(c) purchase and store in-date adrenaline auto-injectors on school property,(d) provide training for school staff on allergy awareness and administrating adrenaline auto-injectors, and(e) record any allergic reactions in the pupil’s individual healthcare and anaphylaxis action plan.(2) The Secretary of State must provide guidance to schools on the implementation of subsection (1) within six months of the day on which this Bill is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to introduce mandatory allergy safety policies for all schools in England.

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to move Amendment 209 and to support the other amendments in this group. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for moving this amendment in Committee, as unfortunately I could not stay in the Chamber that night. In turn, I have taken on the amendment because my noble friend Lady Prentis has been unable to take part in this Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Ramsey and Lady Bennett, for adding their names to the amendment.

As this amendment was debated at the previous stage of the Bill, I will not repeat all the arguments. In summary, it seeks to introduce mandatory allergy safety policies for all schools in England. It marks the culmination of a long campaign in conjunction with the inspirational Helen Blythe following the tragic death of her son Benedict in 2021 when he was only five. An inquest last year concluded that Benedict’s death was avoidable. It was caused by the accidental ingestion of cow’s milk after his school failed to follow the processes and procedures in place to protect him.

I know that we have heard this before, but I want noble Lords to think about it for a moment. Outside of homes, schools are the setting where the most allergy fatalities occur. Only putting these protective measures on a statutory footing will ensure that there are adequate protections for the two children in every classroom who have allergies. Helen has worked tirelessly to establish the safety measures necessary to ensure that no child is ever lost again in such a tragic and avoidable way. I pay tribute to the work of her Member of Parliament, Alicia Kearns, to other campaign groups and to other families—I know we will hear from noble Lords about this—who, sadly, have been through these tragedies and campaigned so hard. There are also the families who live with the fear of allergic reaction and sensitivities every single day when they send their child off to school or another setting, although we are talking about schools tonight.

The current government guidelines for schools do not mention allergies. There is one line on food and one link to an anaphylaxis charity. We now know that schools do not necessarily have the adrenaline auto-injectors or any plans and training in place. The key aim of this campaign is for schools to have spare adrenaline auto-injectors, trained staff and a proper policy in place. I understand that the Government would prefer any change to be in guidance rather than legislation, as proposed here, but there are strong feelings, as I am sure the Minister and her colleagues are aware, that this would not give the guarantees necessary. Hence the debate on this amendment.

Between 1998 and 2018, 66 children died from allergic reactions. There are 680,000 pupils in schools in England who have allergies. That is one or two per classroom, according to the Benedict Blythe Foundation’s REACT report of March 2024. The Department for Education is rightly focused on the attendance crisis; children miss half a million days of education due to allergy every year. Adrenaline auto-injectors are life savers. The Benedict Blythe Foundation estimates that their rollout in English schools, plus training, would cost only £5 million.

I remember a similar campaign to put defibrillators into every school. That was done. It was, as I understand it, funded by the department, at least initially, so I hope the Minister will address the call for these adrenaline auto-injectors and proper training and policy to be put in place in schools.

I am going to come back to funding in a moment. The reason I sort of ran towards my seat in the Chamber is that I was receiving an email about the costs which I think will be relevant to how we proceed this evening.

I want to say something about the department’s approach to this matter. On 5 August last year, the department said in response to a proposal for a Private Member’s Bill by Chris Bloore MP:

“We do not believe the School Allergy Safety Bill is necessary because in the autumn we plan to bring forward proposals for supporting pupils with medical conditions, including allergies”.


No proposals or consultation were published during the autumn. The House debated this amendment on 16 September, which is almost five months ago. There have been plenty of opportunities for engagement with Helen Blythe, the other campaigners, their MPs and me, but instead a rather rushed round table was convened yesterday morning, and in the last week statutory guidance has suddenly been promised and presented to campaigners to have a look at. If there is going to be statutory guidance, I know that a number of noble Lords will have questions for the Minister, but I seek reassurance from her on two key questions, the first of which is, will the guidance make it clear that it will be mandatory for every school to have spare adrenaline auto-injectors? We will come back to the fact that there could be other treatments, but it is particularly AAIs, and spare ones, not just relying on pupils to have their own, that are critical.

On the issue of central funding, we know that school budgets are squeezed and that if schools are left to find the money, some will and some will not. That is not because they do not care, it is just because there are other priorities. The reason I was slightly running in was that I was being briefed. The current model, which is the total annual spend on additional AAIs that can be reallocated, is just over £9 million a year. The proposed model is £5 million for the total cost of rolling out spare adrenaline auto-injectors to schools nationally, and there are some additional costs for training and programme support. That would suggest a potential saving, as a result of the introduction of Benedict’s law, of £1,000,032.15. We can obviously argue about the pounds and the pence, and I understand that it is not the role of this Chamber to help government spend its money, although we can all have strong views on that; but it is critical for noble Lords to hear tonight exactly how the Government think that policy is to be funded. That has not come up in discussions with campaigners so far.

Earlier engagement would have been helpful, because we would all have had the time to work together to get the wording right on things such as the use of the injections. I understand that there are now needle-free, more user-friendly adrenaline delivery options available, and I would have been very amenable to changing the wording of the amendment, had there been earlier engagement to help us to come to a conclusion about how this amendment could be the best it possibly could be. This lack of engagement is why people are tired of politics. It takes too long to get anything done because no one steps forward quickly enough to say, “We can put this right, so let’s make this sensible change”.

My understanding is that pretty well all noble Lords, I hope, will agree with the overall thrust that we want children with allergies in school and it is right that their parents and families know that there are spare treatments—injections and other treatments—available should the worst happen. Often, the child does not know that they are going to have a reaction so it is not a question of saying that they will have their injections with them. The first time a reaction happens may well be in a school setting. It is also right to say that teachers and schools deserve proper training to be put in place.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, in concluding this group, I start by paying tribute to those who have campaigned so hard on school allergy safety, especially Helen and Peter Blythe, Tanya and Nadim Ednan-Laperouse, my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley and other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, in introducing Amendment 209 this evening. The tragic deaths of Benedict Blythe and Natasha Ednan-Laperouse are a stark reminder of the dangers of anaphylaxis. We have heard other examples of that this evening, including the personal experiences of noble Lords.

Amendment 209 seeks to introduce mandatory allergy safety provisions for all schools, including policy adoption, individual healthcare plans, adrenaline auto-injectors and staff training. As stated in Committee, schools have existing duties, under Section 100 of the Children and Families Act 2014, to make arrangements to support pupils with medical conditions including allergy.

However, I am pleased to set out the Government’s plans to transform allergy safety in schools and take forward the campaign for Benedict’s law. Before September 2026, we will issue new statutory guidance and we will consult on it imminently. For the first time it will put specific focus on allergy safety alongside other medical conditions. Through statutory guidance, we will require schools to have a dedicated allergy safety policy. This will set out how the school will manage the risks of allergy and anaphylaxis. It will emphasise the importance of whole-school awareness and understanding, grounded in training for all staff. As this training will be set out in statutory guidance, schools will be expected to comply with it.

Schools need to be conscious and active in managing the risks of allergy, and they need to take steps to minimise the risk of pupils coming into contact with their known allergens. We will be clear that pupils with allergy must be fully included in the life of the school, with arrangements to support them on external trips and visits. Our guidance will set out that a school’s allergy safety arrangements need to be managed actively, with a named governor and senior leader. The reports of incidents, near misses and safety drills will provide evidence to review and improve policies.

But no precautions can be perfect. In many cases, as noble Lords have said, children with no history of allergy will have their first reaction while at school, so it is essential that schools have robust emergency response procedures. While many of those with severe allergies carry their own prescribed adrenaline auto-injectors, schools are able to purchase their own as spares. Many do so, but our statutory guidance will be clear that we expect schools to do so.

This is an important responsibility for schools. Two adrenaline auto-injectors can be purchased at a high street pharmacist for around £150, and many schools already stock them as part of their existing allergy safety arrangements. They must take ownership of these life-saving devices. We are working with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that schools are able to purchase spares as easily and cheaply as possible.

Strong school-wide policies are essential, but it is equally important to capture key information for each child or young person. Our guidance will be clear that every child whose medical condition requires active management by their school should have an individual healthcare plan which specifies the arrangements that will be put in place. This includes those with allergy.

As others have mentioned, yesterday my colleague, the Minister for Early Education, met sector experts, including members of the National Allergy Strategy Group, the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation and the Benedict Blythe Foundation. We have invited them to help us co-produce our new statutory guidance. We are working quickly so that we can consult and issue new guidance as soon as possible. For that reason, let me be clear that we do not disagree with the principle, the objectives or the detail of the noble Baroness’s amendments, but we are already introducing robust measures to address those concerns.

Amendments 210 and 212, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, would require schools to include detailed allergy provisions in contracts with external caterers—policy compliance, allergen information sharing, measures to prevent cross-contamination, and actions if an allergic reaction occurs. I recognise the noble Lord’s determination to secure robust safeguards. However, prescribing contractual content through primary legislation is far too inflexible. Requiring catering providers to comply with each school’s individual allergy policy would be enormously bureaucratic and difficult, probably driving up costs to schools. It is also unnecessary. I understand the concern that caterers should be clear about the requirements to protect children with allergies, but they must already provide allergen information and must manage allergens safely as set out in food regulations and in Food Standards Agency guidance.

Amendments 213 and 214, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, would make the NHS responsible for providing adrenaline auto-injectors to schools. The NHS already provides devices to individuals on prescription, and regulations permit schools to purchase spare adrenaline auto-injectors, as I have already outlined. As I have also said, that is an important responsibility for schools, and they must take ownership of these life-saving devices. We will continue to work with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that they can be secured as easily as possible.

Turning to my noble friend Lady Kennedy, I believe I have covered the majority of the questions she asked, but I understand that I have not covered all of them. I undertake to write with anything that has not been covered in my response so far.

I hope noble Lords will recognise the considerable and important progress that has been made, thanks to the engagement of the department and my honourable friend the Minister for Early Education with campaigners who have, as we have heard, made an enormous difference to children. Everybody in this Chamber should be pleased to have ensured that, and I commit the Government to—

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)]

I get the impression that the Minister may be about to finish so, before she does, may I just ask her two very specific questions? First, I do not think she has addressed the funding point. If I have missed it, I apologise, but please could she clarify whether the Government intend to back up the statutory guidance they propose by September this year with central funding of those spare pens, training and everything else? Secondly, as I understand it, the Minister said that the draft guidance states that schools “can” purchase AAIs. That is not the same as saying that schools must have spare AAIs. Is the Minister open to changing that wording, or could she just clarify the position? Schools must hold spare AAIs. It is of critical importance, for the reasons we have heard.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

On the second point, I said that schools are able to purchase their own spares. Many do so, but I said that our statutory guidance will be clear that we expect schools to do so. The statutory guidance will say that schools should have those spares.

On the point about funding, no, I am not saying that there will be centrally provided funding. I was identifying, by talking about both the cost to schools of buying the adrenaline auto-injectors from high street pharmacies, for example, and the ongoing work with the Department of Health and Social Care, how we will ensure that, by schools using their funding, as half have already done, those auto-injectors are available as cheaply and easily as possible.

I just reiterate, though, that I did say that training would be part of the statutory guidance, as well as an expectation that that training happens across the school.

On that basis, I hope noble Lords will feel reassured and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. We have paid tribute to the campaigners; many of them will be watching these proceedings tonight. I thoroughly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, that the House works best when we have the kind of debate we have had on this, and that, exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said, what matters is not ownership but outcomes.

I think we were all moved by the personal examples that have been shared and the family members who are deeply affected by this. I thank the Minister for the assurances she has been able to give about a mandatory policy and training. I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that this is 19 years overdue and that there are undoubtedly significant costs of delay in treatment for pupils.

Although the Minister has been able to help on the first point, about spare AAIs—although I wait to see the wording—I know, as we all do, that school budgets are under pressure and that when it comes to government commitments without funding there is a danger that they do not happen. The point is that the schools which are committed to doing this will find the money and those for which this is not a priority—they are not going to match the guidance—will find a way to say that they do not have the money to do it. That is a postcode lottery for our young people.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

Before the noble Baroness tells us what she is going to do, I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, to find out what he is going to do with his amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 212 to 214 (to Amendment 209) not moved.

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)]

I am sorry for that cliffhanger. I am still learning about procedure after six and a bit years.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

May I just prolong the cliffhanger slightly? I reiterate that I was clear that this is statutory guidance which all schools should follow unless there are very exceptional reasons why they do not. The point that the noble Baroness makes about the postcode lottery is not right because all schools will be covered by this statutory guidance covering all the issues that I identified.

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)]

I take the Minister’s point. I understand what she is saying and I know that schools will want to follow statutory guidance. But we have heard the example of the defibrillator rollout: the department was able to find the money. We are talking about money that I think the Government would be able to find. Without government funding behind a key policy, schools will have to think about whether or not they do it.

The other point is that we have heard powerful speeches from the Minister’s own Back Benches this evening, all of which have been in favour of this amendment. I think that the way this House works best is to test opinion. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House on this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I too added my name to Amendment 215 but, like my noble friend Lord Hampton, I have spoken on this issue quite a lot and anyone who would like to know my view can find it in Hansard—reams of it.

However, I want to ask the Minister a few questions about the Government’s current position. I was delighted to hear the Prime Minister declare that no one thinks you should have phones in schools and that schools are expected to be phone-free by default. I am particularly pleased because that is a shift in government messaging: in the last two debates on this issue, I was told that the guidance was sufficient as it is and that 90% of secondary schools already have policies in place that work.

I am delighted, but I want to understand what recycling the guidance is going to do to change the experience on the ground for children. Only 15% of children say that phones do not affect their lessons in some way. How will the new guidance help?

My second question is around Ofsted inspections. Ofsted inspects about a quarter of schools each year, so each school gets between three and four years between inspections. I would like to hear from the Minister because I am concerned that, if we pass this today and stick with the Government’s guidance, there are some schools that will not be inspected for another four years. We have a problem in the real world. We will have new guidance, but with a system that will be checked at some time in the future. I am worried that many things could happen in that gap.

Thirdly, I looked at the government website, where Ofsted’s national director of education wrote:

“If a school chooses not to follow the guidance, inspectors will continue to explore the impact of mobile phones on pupils’ behaviour, safety and wellbeing”.


Can the Minister state under what circumstances not having a bell-to-bell restriction would be appropriate, given what the national director of education has said?

Finally, I hope to give the noble Lord, Lord Addington, a little support. I have long advocated for a bell-to-bell restriction, for support for schools to store phones during the day, and for exemptions for children, carers and even for pedagogical reasons—teaching about phones—and for pupils who need assistive technology. But this has taken so long, and we cannot let the exemptions undermine the need to act. If this goes through tonight, will the Government come back with something that is sensitive to these exceptions but does not undermine the purpose of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran? We cannot have an expectation of a phone-free school day, an inspection regime that means that, even if we arrive on this today, some schools will not have seen it in four years’ time, and a policy which the inspectors represent as a choice. This does not add up.

The reason most often given by Ministers against this policy is that it is worse at home. I beg the Government to give the kids a break and eight hours off. The Government are in loco parentis when children are at school. This would be a marvellous thing for the Government to do for parents.

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, when I spoke on this Bill at Second Reading—which seems a million months ago, but perhaps it is not quite that long—I said that I was not convinced about having a ban on phones in schools. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said that I should listen to the arguments.

Whether we agree with online content and what children should access from smartphones is, in a way, a separate debate. There are two main arguments tonight which mean that I will support Amendment 215. First, as we have heard, this should be about supporting good educational outcomes. There is no doubt that having phones in schools is a distraction. We should give our young people the best possible opportunity to concentrate and focus for those eight hours in school.

Secondly, Ministers have said that there is guidance which strongly encourages schools to have policies that mobile phones should be put away. When I speak to teachers and heads, they say that, without something a bit tougher, it is very difficult to police, particularly when parents or families come in and say that there is an exception or why it should not apply. Sometimes they are even very aggressive towards teachers and heads who say that the pupils should not have phones. We should take the opportunity to support education outcomes and those who have to police this policy on the front line by supporting this amendment.

[Baroness Cass (CB)]

My Lords, I want to speak to this amendment for two reasons. One is that my name is on it. The second is for nostalgic purposes, because the first time I spoke in this House was in a debate that my noble friend Lady Kidron was leading on smartphones in schools. I stood up and spoke in her shadow—nothing changes, more than a year later. My niece was sitting nearby, observing democracy in action. Afterwards she said, “Well, what happens then? Do you just talk about it and then forget it?” I can tell her that we did not forget it and that it is still a work in progress.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Morgan of Cotes Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 25th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I add one point to the powerful speeches that have been made in support of the noble Lord, Lord Nash. It is very important that noble Lords understand that the Minister is inviting the House to support Amendments 38A and 38B, neither of which imposes any obligation whatsoever on the Government. Those amendments simply confer a power on Ministers to introduce regulations. If those government amendments were approved, it would be entirely consistent for Ministers thereafter to do absolutely nothing whatsoever. Given the gravity of the mischief that we are addressing and the urgency of addressing that mischief, that seems to me to be an entirely unacceptable position.

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I pick up on one issue that the Minister mentioned in her opening speech. To paraphrase, she said, “If, after consultation, there is a decision to act”. I hope that she is getting the sense tonight that the House is already very much of the opinion that it is not an if; it is a call to action, which has been made so powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Nash.

As we have already heard from a number of noble Lords, having spent many hours debating online safety issues in this House, we have seen progress with the Online Safety Act, but more is to come. There is a simplicity in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Nash. We should send it back to the House of Commons and ask them to think about it again. If the Government decide in the Commons that they are still going to resist, disagree to the amendment and send it back, we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that there is a way forward so that it is not, as we have just heard, left to regulators or the Government to decide to act if they feel like it. There is a power in the Bill before us—we do not have to wait for the next online safety Act—to protect young people from harmful content online.

I urge Ministers to take the opportunity offered by the Bill being amended again this evening and going back to the other place—as I suspect it will—to really listen and engage with those of us who want to act now to protect young people from the harmful material that we absolutely know is, as we have heard, doing them no good online.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the government consultation, but I am distressed by how very wide its scope is and, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, how very vague the outcomes seem to be.

The arguments that I put forward in my AI chatbot amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill also apply here. These amendments will allow the Secretary of State to age-gate any internet service or function. She will be able to determine at what age and by what methods a platform can be restricted. Any regulations under these powers will not be able to be amended by Parliament. All the arguments made by noble Lords last week about the severely limited parliamentary scrutiny of regulations are just as concerning this week with these amendments.

I support the Government carrying out a consultation on a social media ban for under-16s. Evidence of the effect of such a powerful measure needs to be examined and responded to. But I urge the Minister to look at the important changes that would be made to the Government’s amendment by Amendment 38E from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.

The government consultation needs to have parameters, which are provided by her amendment, as she has already set out. Many are issues that do not seem to have been covered by the Online Safety Act—addiction, different developmental ages, unsolicited contact and live-streaming. The restriction of these harms to children could be rapidly implemented under the amendment by the prospect of tech companies facing business disruption measures. These are the enforcement measures that so many of us campaigning against online harms have been calling for. All these issues would be considered not in a consultation without time limit but in one that must conclude within six months. I call on the Minister to take on board the concerns expressed in Amendment 38E and put them into action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, my Motion H1, as we heard earlier, is around the issue of a monetary cap on school uniforms. I will not rehearse the arguments that we have had already in Committee and on Report. However, if the Government are minded to continue to push for a numbers cap, as opposed to a monetary cap, on which your Lordships’ House voted before, I say to them that, ultimately, they should leave all the options open. If their numbers cap does not work, they should therefore have the option to revisit this.

The numbers cap is not my preferred option. I still would like them to consider the actual monetary cap, but what is wrong with coming back in, say, 12 months’ time when they do their review? Supporting my Motion H1 today would allow them to say, “Okay, we thought this would work and it doesn’t”. If it has not quite met the intentions of their aspirations in both their manifesto and this Bill, there would be an alternative provision that your Lordships have voted on previously. That is why I wanted to move this Motion. I do not want to prolong the debate, because we have had a bet on that we were going to keep our contributions to a minimum, so I shall stick to below two minutes.

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Motion M. I support the amendments in lieu, Amendments 105B and 105C. I would like to thank the Ministers; I know that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, is here speaking tonight but perhaps he would pass on thanks to both the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, and Minister Bailey in the House of Commons for their engagement and the fact that they have listened on this issue. In particular, there are details in these amendments which I think the Government had talked about putting in regulations, but it has given real assurance to those who care passionately about this amendment to have these matters on the face of the Bill.

I thank all the noble Lords who signed the original amendment and spoke in favour of it. I also thank Alicia Kearns MP, who led the campaign in favour, but most of all, as the Minister has said, the thanks should go to the tireless campaigners, particularly Helen Blythe. If she is looking for alternative things to do, she would make an excellent legislator in this House. She has been indefatigable in her pursuit of Benedict’s law; it is a pleasure to welcome both Peter and Helen to Parliament today and, I think, friends of Benedict as well.

Helen Blythe was clear that this should not just be statutory guidance, although that was a great step forward, and that legislation was needed. I welcome the fact that the change will come in from September of this year. In her article for The House magazine—this was just before the vote in the House of Commons—Helen said:

“We are closer than ever to allergy-safe schools. Progress has been made. The government has shown it takes the protection of children with allergies seriously. The question now is whether we can secure that progress in a way that guarantees equal protection for every child in every classroom, for children like our son. Benedict’s life mattered. His death must matter too”.


I think the Government have risen to the challenge in putting down this amendment. As the Minister will know, there is a little question about funding, but I know that the department is very aware of that and will work for schools, which, as we all know, have budgets under pressure. But again, I am very pleased to be able to support the amendments in lieu that the Government have laid this evening.

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)]

My Lords, please bear with me again; I will keep to the two-minute limit. I too speak in favour of Amendments 105B and 105C, tabled in lieu in Motion M, and in doing so declare my interest as COO of the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, the UK’s food allergy charity.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, for all her work on behalf of all those children living with allergic disease and their families. Tonight, I want to briefly emphasise the importance of these amendments, which are testament to the efforts of the noble Baroness but also to the Benedict Blythe Foundation and Helen and Peter’s work. I want to read out a couple of the hundreds of positive comments that the Natasha foundation received when the allergy community learnt of the Government’s intention to bring forward statutory guidance on allergy safety in schools. The mums said:

“This is a gift to allergic families”;


“As an allergy mum I can’t tell you what amazing news this is. This will save lives and help so many children feel safer in school”;


“This will mean so much to so many parents and children in this country living with allergies”;


“This will change everything for my family, my son has multiple food allergies. This is a life changing moment”.


These words demonstrate the impact on people’s lives the Government can make when they listen, engage and work collaboratively with charities and Members from all sides of both Houses.

My noble friend Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath cannot be in her place today but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, we too want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, and Minister Bailey in the other place, along with their civil servant teams, who have worked constructively with allergy charities over many months. Of course, there is always more to do and we look forward to continued discussions with the Government on what practical support and funding will be available to enable schools to effectively implement this guidance. But to conclude, these amendments in lieu will help to keep children safe in schools and help to ensure they are better protected, and more included in school life.