Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Spielman Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 114 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, and my noble friend Lord Young’s Amendment 117. It is clearly a better solution to have a monetary limit than a number—that just seems obvious. As for gifted items, I could not agree more with my noble friend. Are we really saying that if I manage to secure for my multi-academy trust some free gifted strip from a football club, I have to say to those people, as a charity, “I’m sorry, I know I’m a charity, but the Government have passed a law which requires me to say no, I can’t take your benefit in kind. I’m sorry”? It is potty, because I am clearly going to have at least three other items apart from a tie. It is clearly daft, and I very much look forward to the noble Baroness’s explanation as to why they are so insistent on this point.

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 117 in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Acton, to which I have added my name. Although it may seem a small point, it matters. The draft guidance perfectly illustrates the consequences of poor policy-making: the cart was put before the horse and an announcement was made about reducing the number of branded items but without the clarity about the policy goal that should have informed the drafting of the legislation.

I will not repeat the examples given by others, but it is unfortunate that the draft guidance is so unequivocal. It is the kind of Kafkaesque rule that brings officialdom into ill repute, and it probably will not save parents a single penny. I add that if the policy goal is narrowly to save all parents money on school uniforms, this could be better achieved through Amendment 114, which would give schools more flexibility and avoid the problem that Amendment 117 is intended to address—although I believe that an automatic inflation adjustment should be incorporated to avoid the messiness of an annual review.

If this limit is enacted, will the Minister ensure that two particular impacts are fully evaluated. First, what is the social impact on children? In demonising branded clothing, the Government have lost sight of part of the value of uniforms. Uniforms are not only about badging and encouraging identification with an institution but about having all children wear clothing that is genuinely identical in quality and cut, not just broadly similar in appearance. We all know how sensitive the young are to status markers, such as having the right—usually expensive—trainers, even when the differences are all but invisible to the adult eye. Fewer school-branded items may mean more pressure on children to have the highest-status version of the unbranded items, which will inevitably bear hardest on the poorest children, so this should be evaluated.

The evaluation should also consider whether parents spend less money not only on school uniforms but on children’s clothing overall. If the change reduces spend on branded items but leads to poorer families being pressured into spending more rather than less overall on children’s clothes, it should be counted as a failure. I hope the Minister can reassure me on those points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister that the Government have moved on some of the concerns raised by me and others, particularly about some of the detail required on the register. However, I of course want to press her to move further. A lot of new and significant amendments have just arrived. I want to make two general points relating to those amendments and then comment on several of them.

I believe that the Government need to revisit their whole policy on home education. We are debating a significant set of amendments very late in the day which are creating a new regime, but I do not think the full implications have been thought through. Let me give one example which is relevant to this group and to other areas. As many noble Lords will know, most local authorities—I believe it is most rather than just many—hold annual meetings with or request annual reports from home-educating parents in their area. These are done regularly on the basis of case law, which says that local authorities are entitled to ask for an annual meeting or an annual report, which involves quite a lot of work.

I do not understand why these have been ignored and the additional requirements for meetings, information and monitoring are not built around them. There seems to be inconsistency in developing the policy. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain—either on this group or on one of the groups to do with information on activities on the register—why the Government have chosen to ignore this annual reporting system which exists in so many places. Presumably, it was an explicit decision to do so. Can I also ask her to confirm that parents will still have to comply with requests for annual reports or meetings? Or can they now just say, “Look at the register”?

Home education has changed enormously in the last few years and policy certainly needs to reflect this, but it needs to be based on a detailed examination of what is going on. Most importantly—we have not really spent time in Committee on this—we need to understand in some detail the causes of the big increase in the last few years, driven by parents who believe that schools are failing their children, many of whom have special needs and require special hope. These are big questions, and it is important that the Government take this beyond this Bill and look at the wider policy. After all, those parents are taking on emotionally and financially demanding responsibilities. Why do so few head teachers use their powers of flexibility to accommodate children in the way that their parents would want them to? Some of those issues are around mental health and other things that we have touched on, but they are also about how schools are governed and the increasing requirements placed on them.

Another question that needs to be considered is: how many parents are trying to home-educate for all the wrong reasons? What proportion do we think this is? I know from listening to education officers that it is quite small, but it demands attention. Let me be clear that I understand the concerns about safeguarding and educational standards. They are real, just as they are real in schools, and they need to be dealt with proportionately. In terms of safeguarding, Peers who like data may want to know that the only figures I can find are that home-educated children add up to about 1.4% of the population of schoolchildren and they account for 1.2% of serious case reviews. As noble Lords will know, those are reviews where children are seriously harmed or die. These figures suggest that home-educated children are no more at risk than children at school and conceivably less so. My point is that home education should be seen as a risk factor only for those with a record of abuse or where there is an existing concern, but not for the generality of parents, yet the approach we see in the Bill suggests that all home-educating parents are viewed with suspicion. That is certainly what they feel.

Looking ahead, once proportionate checks are done at the beginning of a relationship between parents and the authorities, I believe the approach should be one of partnership, as the Minister said. It is strange that it is not, given that in other policy areas government is considering more partnership with parents. In health, for example, it is now becoming accepted that parents know their child better than any professional can. As the Minister knows, I am working with a group of home-educating parents together with a home education officer and my noble friend Lord Hampton to look at alternative policy ideas for the future, and I am grateful to her for facilitating access for discussions with her officials about this.

Let me turn to specific amendments. Government Amendment 120 gives authorities the power to withhold permission to educate, or to decide whether they can educate, from parents of children who have been the subject of action under Section 47 in the last five years —i.e. things that have to do with safeguarding issues. To that extent, it seems proportionate and in line with what I have just said about risk factors. However, I have one significant concern. Many adopted children will end up being caught by this, because those children may have been the subject of such proceedings earlier in life before adoption. Noble Lords will know that adoption is a one-year or two-year, rigorous process. Do we really think that local authorities should second-guess parents who have been though that process about the best education for the child that they have just been entrusted with? Are they really a source of risk? I would be enormously grateful if the Minister would exempt them. My Amendment 120A makes that specific point.

However, Amendment 121A from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to change the five-year period into a lifetime requirement and include proceedings under Section 31, where children have been taken into care, and Section 17, where children have ever been in need. I believe this is disproportionate in its impact. It will draw many people into this group. Do we really want to treat disabled children differently simply because their parents have asked voluntarily for some help, or because they were in care before adoption? I know of cases where children were taken into care at the request of the wife during proceedings against an abusive husband.

Amendment 121B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is potentially extremely dangerous for that last group of parents, who are seeking to avoid abusive ex-partners, as it will reveal their location and possibly their address. I cannot make this point strongly enough. I know women who are in this situation. The amendment says that all parents should be consulted. The Minister will also know that where such partners discover the authority or address, they may well bring allegations against their ex-partner under Section 47, causing as much damage as possible. I note in this context that deregistering a child from a school requires only one signature, not the signature of all the parents involved. This seems inconsistent.

However, Amendment 123 by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seems eminently sensible in requiring that local authorities should spell out reasons for refusing permission to deregister children in special schools. My Amendments 122 and 124 would serve similar purposes. They are about holding authorities to account for their decisions. The wording of Amendment 122 relates to local authorities judging that staying at a school is in the child’s best interests. There needs to be some appropriate mechanism for confirming or challenging this, and I propose that it should be confirmed by a court. My Amendment 124 addresses cases where parents appeal against an authority’s decision; it asks that the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers issue guidance on how they would judge an appeal. This seems to me a very straightforward ask. People will need to know how their appeal will be judged. I hope the Minister agrees. The more transparency here, the better.

I agree with the Minister that government Amendment 125, about meetings at the point of deregistration, seems generally sensible and worth taking forward as a pilot. I believe they should also be treated as exit interviews, asking why the relationship between the school and the child has broken down—if that is the case, because it may not—and making that information available to the education committee and Ofsted. Schools and authorities need to use that information to improve their services, and that is the purpose of my Amendment 125A, which I believe from my correspondence the Minister agrees with.

I turn to government Amendment 131 along with Amendment 131A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about requesting meetings in the child’s home. This is the most controversial area, and I suspect other Peers have had more correspondence about this than anything else, raising a whole range of issues about access to people’s homes. I note that this is not mandatory, although there are implicit penalties for not complying. What relationship are they trying to establish? This is problematic legally, but I am not going to dwell on that; my earlier comments on Amendment 121 by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, apply here: do the parents of adopted children have to apply?

I have two further points. First, I am not clear what this inspection is about. What criteria will be used? The home as such is not a proxy for the standard of education. Surely we need to know the criteria that are involved. The only criterion that I can possibly think of is that the child has some quiet space at home or elsewhere to study, although that raises questions about Travellers.

Lastly, even more importantly, why should the child be subject to two meetings in 15 days? This is a real issue, involving the invasion of what is, for many of them, their safe space. This is very problematic for many children. We need only think of adopted children, many of whom are terrified by any officials and live in a constant fear of being rejected or taken away again. This amendment requires more debate and more answers. I certainly feel it is important that the child should be at one or other of the two meetings that are proposed in the first 15 days, but two meetings with officials in 15 days seems excessive.

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 121A, relating to local authority consent for the withdrawal of certain children from school, and to Amendment 131A, empowering local authorities to make home visits to children who have ever been subject to a care order or on a child protection plan. Both amendments have been proposed by my noble friend Lady Barran and are supported by other noble Lords on other Benches.

Broadly, I have welcomed the provisions in the Bill strengthening protections for children not in school or removed from schools, and I am grateful to the Government for the amendments that they have tabled since Committee, but I do not believe that is enough. We need to recognise more clearly that, in some circumstances, the declared intention to home-educate can in itself be a signal that some risk or harm has resurfaced.

No safeguarding system can ever be entirely comprehensive and infallible, and indeed safeguarding work should always be proportionate, but schools are an important part of that system, especially for children at higher risk. Social work always involves a difficult balance. A care order is a drastic intervention. Maintaining a child protection plan is expensive and intrusive into family life. We do not keep children in care or on protection plans by default, and it is normal for the level of intervention to be adjusted in line with circumstances. So, while a child is of school age, schools provide an important continuing residual line of sight to the child and are responsible for alerting local authorities if they believe that a child’s circumstances have deteriorated.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, this amendment raises no issues of legal representation or ECHR compliance. Other professions operating under heightened regulatory duties already have bespoke procedural protections. Teachers do too, and this amendment simply reflects that reality. If the Government cannot accept the amendment today, I ask the Minister at least to commit to strengthening departmental guidance to signal professional accompaniment as good practice, and to ensure that the forthcoming Section 10 review explicitly considers teachers and school staff. Supporting school staff at their most vulnerable moments should not be controversial. Amendment 191A simply seeks to ensure access to appropriate support when it is most needed. I commend it.

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 243D, which is unchanged from the amendment that I tabled in Committee. It is late and I shall be brief. We are in a world where we all have a much greater propensity to complain in great numbers and are doing so very frequently. AI is making it easy to complain at great length, with minimal effort, and service providers of all kinds are quite simply drowning in workload. Talk to any head teacher and you will hear this.

I propose streamlining the current messy patchwork of statutory provisions to create a single streamlined model in which complaints will be triaged and considered only by the most relevant body, with information available to others when necessary. I believe that this would improve schools’ capacity to respond to serious concerns.

The Minister’s response was that the issue was being considered by the Improving Education Together group of unions and other stakeholders, with which the Government are committed to co-developing policy design and implementation. Indeed, this consideration seems to have happened, because guidance was recently published, both for parents by DfE and for schools by Parentkind. The content is entirely sensible, but it does not address the major structural problem: that a minority of parents can and do spray complaints at every conceivably relevant entity, including Ofsted, DfE, the Teaching Regulation Agency, as well as school governors and MATs or local authorities. A proportion of parents do not desist, even when they get fair and reasonable responses, and these volumes are drowning out the serious complaints that absolutely need attention. And despite this guidance, there are still those different legal frameworks and best practice guidelines for maintained schools and academies, which continues to create confusion.

I think schools will have hoped for greater acknowledgement of the scale of the issue and the impact it is having both on staff well-being and more generally on school capacity to respond, especially in relation to AI-generated complaints. I think they will now be hoping that the schools White Paper will provide for root and branch review of the system, including a co-ordinated system to triage complaints, such as this amendment would provide for, and perhaps also some powers for school leaders to act where there is unreasonable behaviour that goes beyond what is contemplated in this amendment. With apologies to my noble friend Lord Jackson, I think that rationalising the current problems to release the capacity that needs to be there for serious complaints is perhaps more likely to help than adding an additional layer. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will be able to reassure me that the Government intend to go beyond mere advice as to how all parties can use the current legal framework better.

Finally, Amendments 190 and 191A are also important in establishing some important principles of fairness for school staff as well as for parents, and Amendment 191 would close a small but significant loophole.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to Amendment 191A, to which I would have added my name had I been slightly more organised. I have been a member of teaching unions in the past but I am not any longer. Many teachers are not members of a union. These are personal decisions, whether cost or philosophical. Trade unions play an important role in the workplace, but not being a member should not put you at a disadvantage when facing a formal allegation. It is all very well bringing a colleague along but, apart from the moral support, they might not be much help.

Doctors and dentists are permitted to be accompanied at disciplinary hearings by representatives from professional defence organisations under the NHS’s maintaining high professional standards framework. This has not undermined trade unions or weakened safeguarding: it has simply ensured that highly scrutinised professionals are not left unsupported at critical moments and has helped to ensure that due process has been followed. Teachers and school staff operate under comparable levels of public scrutiny and regulatory oversight. Amendment 191A is a modest, sensible step that reflects the reality and promotes fairness and consistency in how disciplinary processes are conducted. It does not even go so far as arrangements in medicine but is a step in the right direction and I strongly support it.

Amendment 243D, to which I did actually add my name, is very simple. I know from first-hand experience how complicated school complaints can be, with different complaints being sent to different organisations, often duplicated. They could be going to DfE, Ofsted, TRA, the school and the LEA. This is a very simple, overdue and badly needed amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 193A, 193B and 193C and declare my interest as chair of the National Society for Education. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, for her support of Amendments 193A and 193B. I will address these two first and together.

These two amendments are about good communication. They would require the chief inspector to include the relevant religious body along with the academy proprietor and the Secretary of State when a report is circulated at the conclusion of an inspection of a multi-academy trust that contains a school with a religious foundation. For example, in the case of the Church of England, the relevant body would be the Diocesan Board of Education.

Under the DBE Measure 2021, DBEs have a range of duties and powers, including advice-giving, data analysis and information gathering in relation to their schools and academies. Timely receipt of a multi-academy trust’s inspection report will enable the fulfilment of these duties and powers.

I seek the Minister’s assurance that these straightforward amendments, enabling good communication and the delivery of statutory duty, will find their way into the Bill.

Amendment 193C in my name would ensure that where multi-academy trusts contain schools with a religious designation, these are inspected on and held to account for their ethos, religious education and collective worship.

At present, over 42% of Church of England’s schools are academies, amounting to over 20% of all academies in England. When we include Roman Catholic academies and those with other religious foundations, the total percentage rises still further to approximately one-third of the entire academy estate.

All these academies will fall under the proposed new requirement for the inspection of multi-academy trusts. However, at present there is no provision for the specialist denominational inspection of those multi-academy trusts that have direct responsibility for the leadership and governance of academies with a religious foundation. This contrasts markedly with current arrangements, in which individual schools and academies with a religious foundation are inspected by the relevant religious body under Section 48 of the Education Act 2005 and by the contractual provisions of an academy’s funding agreement.

There is no provision within the Bill as drafted which would mirror Section 48 provision and deliver expert, individual, school-based evaluation and accountability for multi-academy trusts containing schools of a religious character and foundation. This is an omission or oversight with potential to affect adversely the quality of accountability and inspection for approximately a third of the academy estate.

Amendment 193C addresses this omission by seeking to mirror current Section 48 provision and good practice for multi-academy trusts containing schools with a religious foundation. Led by the inspectorates of religious bodies such as the Statutory Inspection of Anglican and Methodist Schools, inspections would combine, as they do most effectively today, the application of expert religious knowledge with inspection expertise to ensure that the accountability regime for the proprietors of academies includes all significant elements of the life, leadership and governance of schools in their purview. I thank the Minister for engaging with key partners in educational delivery within the National Society for Education and the Catholic Education Service ahead of this debate. I trust that the Government will continue to work with us to find a way forward and to address this omission.

To conclude, Amendments 193A and 193B are intended as friendly, simple, straightforward insertions to enhance lines of communication and to keep the relevant religious body informed when one of its schools is inspected. On Amendment 193C, however, I remain deeply concerned that, without the provision outlined in the amendment in my name, providers of schools of religious character will be left with wholly inadequate inspection arrangements. This is an entirely avoidable state of affairs which, if unaddressed, as I said in earlier comments, will affect approximately a third of the academy estate and represent a backward step from current inspection arrangements under Section 48 of the Education Act 2005. Can the Minister give assurances that she will bring forward proposals to address the omission I identify and work with the National Society for Education and the Catholic Education Service to bring forward proposals or pilots that address our concerns prior to Third Reading?

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, a substantial new chapter is being added to the Bill on Report by the Government’s Amendment 193, which provides for the inspection of multi-academy trusts. This has considerable significance for the regulation of all academies, and I must therefore make some wider points before I turn to Amendments 193D and 193E in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran, to which I have put my name. I must also declare my interest as a former Ofsted chief inspector who has advocated strongly for MAT inspection for many years.

Everyone is familiar with school inspection. For more than 30 years, this was unequivocally framed by government as a public accountability mechanism to defend the interests of children and parents. The very last strands of support activity were removed from Ofsted more than a decade ago so as to avoid any blurring. Published inspection judgments and reports with real consequences are a powerful regulatory force, precisely because they have real traction. This model has long been the subject of relentless hostility and efforts to undermine it by some within the sector.

But the law relating to school inspections has not kept pace with the evolution of sector structures over the past 20 years. The academy trust model, which now goes back 20 years, places legal responsibility for a school unequivocally with the trust board, not with a school-level governing body or an individual head teacher. Successive Governments chose to keep inspection to school level while evolving a separate regulatory approach for trusts. That separate approach broadly consists of private review within DfE of published and other data and periodic private discussion between each MAT and the DfE regulatory team, with escalation to Ministers where necessary. In the main, trust-level concerns are dealt with privately, except where the most serious failings justify terminating a funding agreement or acting against an individual. This mechanism is highly susceptible to producer capture of government —I know of more than a few examples—and it creates an imbalance; it feels unfair to many heads and those beneath them, as individual schools are publicly reported on.

There is also no clear dividing line between schools and trusts. Trusts may choose to centralise many activities, including the choice of curriculum, lesson planning, teacher training and professional development, assessment, pastoral approaches and behaviour policies as well as back-office functions. A centralised MAT with 60 schools will have around 15 inspections a year. In each of these, inspectors must ask questions about decisions, some of which are not taken at school level, to form a rounded view of the quality of education and safeguarding in the school. A judgment of school quality may have to encompass aspects that are not under the control of a head teacher, which of course feels unfair to those heads. The current model also makes it particularly hard for government to intervene when a MAT is slightly underperforming across the board but no one school is severely failing. All this makes clear that a refresh is sorely needed, and here I am only repeating what I have said publicly in the past. I genuinely welcome the Government’s decision to act.

Turning to the detail, Clause 193 in effect creates a skeleton containing the powers and obligations to put in a system of MAT inspection, but no policy proposals have been published to explain the set of purposes. MAT inspections may be purely to facilitate accountability to government and to justify inspections at MAT level. They may be intended to increase transparency for parents. They may be intended to function partly or entirely as a support mechanism for trusts. But we do not know. Nor do we know how they are intended to interact with school inspections, whose purposes have also become blurred. The Government no longer link defined consequences to overall inspection judgments, which I believe, and hear from many, has increased uncertainty and anxiety in the school sector.

The Government have also not clarified whether the policy purposes of school inspections have changed. I infer that true education quality is not the highest priority for the Government because they have accepted the current school inspection approach, which has startlingly removed all but a cursory scrutiny of education itself so as to make more time for specific government priorities such as attendance, belonging and now, of course, mobile phone policy enforcement. In so doing, government and Ofsted have intentionally, and in my view unwisely, made themselves blind to all the many ways that good education can be limited and compromised if school quality judgments are predicated too narrowly on outcomes. This watering down of school inspection makes it even more important that the MAT inspection model is well conceived, well defined, well understood and likely to be fully effective. It is also highly desirable for the judgments to be made independently of Ministers if they are to have the legitimacy that they need as a basis for government intervention.

That brings me to Amendments 193D and 193E. First, these amendments seek to ensure that the necessary work of consultation, piloting and reporting is done before the new sections are commenced and the full inspection regime begins. This period could be used to calibrate the range of judgments needed and the corresponding range of regulatory interventions, and to clarify the purposes. The thresholds also need to be tested against realistic system improvement capacity so that this can be allocated effectively.

Secondly, the amendments aim to create a coherent overall model that reflects the multi-level nature of MATs as well as the variety of organisational models that they deploy. One trust may operate in a highly integrated way, with all major decisions and the finances controlled centrally and local head teachers focused on effective implementation of the central model; another trust—including many of the faith trusts—may operate a highly devolved model, leaving most matters to heads and determining only aspects of faith-related provision and, perhaps, core administrative systems and processes. At the moment, there is only limited evidence on the relative effectiveness of different models, at least as far as I know. The trust inspection may generate some good evidence but, in the absence of stronger evidence, inspections should not force MATs into a particular operating model, as I know some fear.

Thirdly, the amendments ensure that inspection takes account of a MAT’s ability to manage schools efficiently, as well as their education quality and other direct child-facing aspects. This has the potential to simplify and to unify the regulatory arrangements for trusts. There are parallels with the model used in the Netherlands, which has structures similar to multi-academy trusts. There does need to be join-up in the regulatory system. It is hard for government to make and sustain decisions if it is getting conflicting messages from different strands of monitoring. I hesitate to say it, but overall judgments have their place.

Finally, I would value the Minister’s assurance that she will make it explicit that the conception of quality against which inspection is carried out should be grounded in a strong evidential foundation, in trusts as in schools, and that the regulatory framework should be revised whenever the accumulation of evidence points towards a change.