Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 1st May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Relevant document: 21st Report of the Delegated Powers Committee. Welsh Legislative Consent sought.

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

My Lords, while I might have felt offended by the exodus of so many people at the end of Oral Questions, I am reassured by the large number of people who want to contribute to this debate today. It is an honour to move the Second Reading of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, for there are few topics that unite Members of both Houses more deeply than the well-being of children. The numbers of contributors demonstrate that today.

This Bill has been ably steered through the other House by my ministerial colleagues, and I want to acknowledge those across political parties and from key external organisations who have spoken so passionately and sensitively in support of child safeguarding and ensuring that every child has the opportunity to thrive. Their voices have been invaluable in shaping this debate, and their commitment to protecting children’s present and future is deeply appreciated. I am also particularly pleased to be working alongside my noble friend Lady Blake, whose expertise and dedication in social care and education is invaluable. I am grateful for her support as we take this Bill forward together in this House.

This Bill represents an enormously important opportunity to improve our children’s social care and school systems. The chance to make meaningful change to the lives of children and families through legislation of this kind is rare, and I look forward to the thoughtful, impactful debate ahead. It also delivers on manifesto commitments to drive high and rising standards in our schools, ensuring that every child has the opportunity to achieve and to thrive.

I know that all Members of this House share the fundamental belief that our children deserve more, but, currently, children’s life chances are limited by systemic obstacles. Children at risk of abuse are falling through the cracks of our safeguarding systems. At the same time, while the best schools and trusts have shown how collaboration, strong leadership and innovation can transform education, many schools are still held back by a system that simply does not work well enough.

The Bill will strengthen protections for vulnerable children and ensure that those in care have the security and stability they need to thrive. But it also goes beyond these essential safeguarding reforms and ensures that opportunity is encouraged in every school. Every child deserves access to excellent teaching and a school system that gives them the foundations to succeed, no matter where they live or their circumstances. The Bill sets out a comprehensive package of support to advance significant improvements across the education and care systems, encouraging innovation and excellence, while ensuring fair and accountable systems that work for every child.

For too many children today, their background has a decisive negative impact on the life they are able to build. Ensuring that every child starts their school day nourished, focused and ready to learn is fundamental to our commitment to breaking down barriers to success. That is why this Bill delivers on the manifesto pledge to place a duty on every state-funded primary school to introduce free breakfast, making them accessible to all children, regardless of background.

Breakfast clubs have proven benefits: they boost attendance, improve academic attainment and enhance children’s social and emotional well-being. However, access remains fragmented; despite the good work of the national school breakfast programme, it reaches only around 2,000 primary schools, covering only a fraction of those in need, and funds only 75% of the cost of food and delivery, leaving schools to cover staff wages and other expenses. This Bill goes further than simply expanding the existing programme; it makes a fundamental shift in how we support children’s education and well-being.

From April, 750 schools across all nine regions, including 45 special schools, have led the way in free, daily breakfast clubs, saving parents up to £450 a year. Early adopters will be part of a test-and-learn phase to strengthen delivery of national rollout. We will learn what works and develop the programme, and this Bill will ensure that the opportunities provided by free, universal breakfast clubs reach all primary children.

In a country where 3.5 million children are growing up in absolute poverty, we must ensure that no child’s future is determined by their family’s financial circumstances. And breaking down barriers to opportunity goes beyond just the classroom. This Bill will also help by limiting the number of branded items of school uniform and PE kit that schools can require, reducing unnecessary costs and putting money back in parents’ pockets.

Our responsibility is greatest to those children who most need our protection and safeguarding. We must learn from the tragic cases of children failed by the system, so this Bill delivers on important recommendations from significant recent reviews, including the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, the child protection review published by the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel and a study into children’s social care placements published by the Competition and Markets Authority. Our measures are also informed by evidence from effective local practice.

Our priority is to keep children and families together wherever it is safe to do so. By helping more families to stay together, we can improve outcomes for children and reduce the number of children who need to enter the care system. This Bill strengthens early support, ensuring that those at risk of family breakdown can create a plan that prioritises their child’s needs. It places a duty on local authorities to offer a family group decision-making meeting before an application for a care or supervision order is made, potentially preventing many children from going into care and instead allowing them to remain safely with their families.

To support more children staying with relatives, friends or other connected persons, this Bill will require all local authorities to publish a kinship local offer. Every child deserves a stable, loving and permanent home, and this Bill takes meaningful steps to make that a reality. To strengthen safeguarding, we are placing a duty on safeguarding partners to fully include education and childcare settings in their arrangements, ensuring no opportunity to protect children is missed. We are also requiring local safeguarding partners to establish multi-agency child protection teams in every area to take decisive action when necessary.

For too long, poor information sharing has contributed to serious child safeguarding incidents, including in reviews following the death of, or serious injury to, a child. To ensure that no child goes unseen or unsupported, the Bill sets the foundation for the introduction of a unique identifier for children and strengthens the regulatory regime in place for independent educational institutions. Parents have the right to have their wishes regarding their child’s education respected, but that education must be suitable and that child must be safe. The Bill stablishes mandatory registers for children not in school full-time, so that we know where children are and that their education is safe and suitable.

When care is necessary, it must work for children and not for profit. In 2022, the Competition and Markets Authority and the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care found that levels of profit in the care placement market were well above those that would be expected in a well-functioning market. To prevent children’s social care placement providers from profiting at the expense of vulnerable children, we are introducing a new power to enable the Secretary of State to cap profits if profiteering is not brought under control through our other interventions. Because care does not end at 18, we will require all local authorities to provide eligible care leavers with “staying close” support where their welfare requires it, ensuring that young people leaving care have stability and the right help to build a bright future.

Every child is entitled to a high-quality state education. While there has been progress over the years, our system is simply not working well enough for everybody. Standards vary widely, with a stark contrast between the experiences of children in the best and worst schools. The gap in average key stage 4 attainment between the best-performing and worst-performing schools is now equivalent to more than two GCSE grades per subject. Too many schools are stuck—trapped in cycles of underperformance without the capacity or momentum to improve—and children with additional needs are not getting the support they need. The attainment gap for disadvantaged children at key stage 2 and key stage 4 has remained persistently high and has yet to return to pre-pandemic levels. There are large and persistent attainment gaps at all stages of education; currently, 39% of children are not meeting expected standards in all of reading, writing and maths as they leave primary school.

Further, we have an absence crisis, with approximately one in five children missing a day of school each fortnight. That needs to change. High and rising standards in every classroom must be the right of every child, delivered through a broad, high-quality curriculum taught by skilled and dedicated teachers. That is why we have established the independent, expert-led curriculum and assessment review, which will deliver a broad, rich and innovative curriculum to ensure that all children and young people have the essential knowledge and skills to set them up for work and life. Teaching quality is the most important in-school determinant of pupil outcomes. That is why this Government are committed to recruiting 6,500 new expert teachers across our mainstream secondary and specialist schools, and our colleges, over the course of this Parliament.

This Bill is a charter of common sense, providing a core guarantee of quality education in every school, no matter where you live. The Bill will establish a pay floor by requiring all schools to adhere to a minimum pay level. This will help ensure a competitive pay structure, supporting the recruitment and retention of the best educators. Additionally, academy trusts will be required to consider the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document when setting staff conditions, further promoting fairness and consistency across the education system.

The Bill will ensure that when the national curriculum is reformed, it will be an entitlement for all children in all schools, and that new teachers either have or are working towards qualified teacher status, followed by a period of statutory induction. To provide greater certainty for families, the Bill strengthens collaboration between schools and local authorities on admissions and place planning.

It also introduces more flexibility in how we support struggling schools. When academies were introduced—by the last Labour Government—they were the disruptors in the system, challenging and supporting the schools that most needed it to improve. Now they are the system: over 80% of our secondary schools are academies. We need new challenge, new urgency and new tools to drive improvement where schools just are not doing well enough for our children.

That is why this Bill enables a range of interventions to address underperformance. While academisation will remain a key tool for tackling failing schools, the Bill gives the Government more discretion to apply the most appropriate solutions to individual cases, including supporting the deployment of our RISE teams. These teams are made up of proven leaders with a track record of improving schools and delivering for children. As we announced on Tuesday, an additional 45 advisers joined last month, tripling the total number to 65. This will enable us to expand our reach from an initial 32 schools to more than 200, reaching over 120,000 children and putting us on track to engage with up to 600 schools by March 2026. Through these reforms, we aim to ensure that every child can attend a high-quality local school and receive the education they deserve.

This Bill makes vital, practical changes to our children’s social care and education systems, and there will be tangible improvements for every young person as a result. This Government have been clear in setting out their mission to ensure that a child’s future should not be determined by their circumstances. I know that this principle is widely shared across the House. By addressing the systemic barriers that too often hold our children back, we have a unique opportunity through this Bill to create a more equitable and successful environment, where all young people have the chance to achieve and thrive. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a long, interesting and well-informed debate. Given the number of noble Lords who contributed, I will do my best to cover the key issues, but I will not necessarily be able to name-check all those who raised them. I welcome the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, who told us about his journey to Sheffield, education and youth work. I am sure that that will be important for our debates in this House, and we are all very glad that he got in safely. I also recognise the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Biggar. He will bring his historical perspective—as he has done today—his free thinking and his challenge to this House, and I look forward to future debates and engagement with him.

The discussion we have had today has been both thoughtful and well informed, reflecting the depth of expertise in this House. It is also clear that there is a shared commitment among Peers to work collaboratively in improving our children’s social care and education systems. The Bill makes a significant contribution to this Government’s mission to dismantle barriers to opportunity. Reforming children’s social care and education systems is a key part of this mission, ensuring that hundreds of thousands of children have the start in life they deserve.

By shifting the system’s focus towards early support that helps keep families together, we are breaking down the barriers that prevent children from thriving. Alongside and united with this, the Bill introduces measures to drive high and rising standards in education, ensuring every child has access to excellent teaching, strong leadership and a high-quality curriculum. We are committed to building a system that removes the obstacles to learning that hold too many children back, with all reforms underpinned by clear and robust accountability. The Bill includes many measures to keep children safe and prioritise their well-being, and I am glad that they have been widely welcomed across the House.

Turning to the specific points made today, I will start with the debate we have had on how we can ensure our schools are delivering for our children. The most compelling arguments have come from those arguing passionately for the urgent need to ensure that all children have the education they need and deserve. This is at the heart of this Government’s opportunity mission. Too many children are still held back by where they live or the school that they attend.

Let me be very clear, as this Government have been, that this Government back academies. We agree that high-quality trusts have been critical in driving school improvement over the last two decades. We want to build on this success and we want high-quality academy trusts to grow. As of March, we are supporting almost 700 schools through voluntarily converting to academy status. This is a higher number than under the previous Government, at any point since at least 2018.

However, the system is not working well enough for all, and significant issues persist in areas such as attainment and attendance, as several noble Lords have identified. While the best trusts have spread innovation and excellence across the system, academisation is not always the answer. Even when it is, on too many occasions it has been too slow.

The least compelling arguments came from those more concerned about a defence of structures and the status quo, which we have heard from some opposite. I have to say that some of what we have heard from those opposite smacks of complacency, not of consensus. The true consensus is among those who know that tackling underperformance needs urgency, innovation and a range of tools. As for some of the comments made about the RISE teams that are starting work, I am not sure that noble Lords in this place want to be referring to successful school leaders as “clipboard-carrying bureaucrats”, as some have.

Among the things that many noble Lords have identified as key to improving standards, the first is the issue of the national curriculum. It is not true that maintained schools are unable to innovate while following the national curriculum. As my noble friend Lord Knight identified, many academies follow the national curriculum and innovate well. There is flexibility to tailor the content and delivery of the curriculum to meet the needs of pupils and to take account of new developments, societal changes, or local and topical issues. A requirement to teach the national curriculum provides a floor but no ceiling. It does not force schools to teach in a particular way or prevent them adapting or innovating, and it does not stop them adding extra content in the best interests of their pupils.

However, there is more to do in ensuring that young people are prepared for life and that there is space for creativity, arts, drama and sport, as we have heard, as well as vocational subjects. That is the reason why this Government set up the curriculum and assessment review, precisely to deliver a curriculum that will ensure that those things are possible—the floor for innovation that I identified.

Several noble Lords talked about the specific case of university technical colleges. UTCs and studio schools offer a distinctive curriculum which specialises in technical and vocational education. Pupils make an active decision, alongside their parents, to attend these schools for that distinct curriculum. In choosing to go to such a school, they indicate that they do not want to study the full breadth of the national curriculum. As such, the requirements to follow the full national curriculum will not apply to UTCs and studio schools. The details of the exemption will be discussed with UTCs and studio schools, and the regulations will be laid before Parliament in due course. That is what happens when the power of my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Lord, Lord Baker—the founder of the national curriculum and UTCs—combine.

Innovation needs great teaching, as many noble Lords have identified. High-quality teaching is the most important in-school factor to a child’s educational outcomes. That is why this Government have made good early progress to deliver towards our key pledge to recruit 6,500 new expert teachers.

We agreed a 5.5% pay award for teachers this year. We are increasing teacher trainee bursaries, with a focus on shortage subjects. We have doubled retention payments from this year. To support these initiatives, we have expanded our schoolteacher recruitment campaign. We have already seen a 6% increase in new entrants to initial teacher training compared with last year—reversing a trend of year-on-year decreases since the pandemic period. We have already made changes on some of the concerns expressed around pay. We are clear that the provisions in the Bill provide a floor for the pay that teachers in all schools, including academies, should receive—but no ceiling.

There are existing exemptions to the requirement for QTS, which allow schools the flexibility to recruit subject experts and then support them to gain QTS through an employment-based route. It is of course possible to bring technical experts and others into schools to provide contributions to teaching. We value the knowledge and passion that such people can bring to schools, but great teaching goes beyond subject knowledge. For mainstream teaching, we need teachers who understand age-specific approaches, how to adapt teaching to the needs of children and how to ensure effective behaviour management approaches. That is why it is right for all schools that teaching is done by qualified teachers. We will update the regulations to clarify that teachers will have three terms to secure a place on an appropriate route to qualified teacher status, so that schools’ recruitment processes for teachers of any subject are not held up.

On the points made about Clause 49, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, I have to disagree. This is not the constitutional innovation or outrage that noble Lords opposite have suggested. The Secretary of State already has a direction-making power over maintained schools and, from this Bill, will have similar powers over academies. I hope that in Committee we will get more of a chance to talk about the reality of what that will mean.

The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, suggested that there is not support for our provisions. We are clear that the measures in the Bill are the right response to the challenges of today and tomorrow. The Secretary of State for Education has engaged extensively with representatives of the trust sector over recent months. In addition to welcoming the changes we have made to the Bill on pay and conditions, the Confederation of School Trusts in its updated briefing is reassured by our approach to the national curriculum and welcomes the interim report of the curriculum and assessment review. CST is also reassured by our approach to the combination of the Bill’s provisions for QTS and regulation for setting out exemptions. On pupil admission numbers and new schools, CST endorses the need for a framework that works for children and believes that this can be achieved through regulations and statutory guidance.

I am glad to hear the welcome for breakfast clubs, and in Committee we will get into some of the detail around those. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, that there are already 750 early adopters of free breakfast clubs. We will learn from them about how to roll out the scheme with the appropriate design and funding to ensure it is available to all pupils.

I will move on to some of the other measures that noble Lords have raised. On home education, all children have the right to a safe and suitable education, whether they are educated at school or otherwise. We know that many home-educating parents make the difficult decision to home-educate for legitimate reasons and work hard to ensure that their children receive an education that enables them to achieve and thrive. Sadly, that is not the case for all children. Some are receiving very little or no education and some may even be at risk of harm or exploitation.

This Bill includes measures that make children not in school more visible, and better enables local authorities to take action where needed. I want to reassure home-educating parents that these measures will not infringe on the right to choose to home-educate for the vast majority, neither will the content of home education be scrutinised any more than is the case now.

In relation to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, the Bill does not allow local authorities to demand access to homes; they may ask for that. In Committee, we will be able to look in more detail at the provisions around what information needs to be provided by home-educators, and I hope that we can reassure people on that.

Several noble Lords raised the issue of special educational needs and disability. Not everything that this Government are doing in this enormously important area is contained within this legislation, but, when it comes to special educational needs and disability—which, as many noble Lords, have said, is a lose-lose situation for too many children and parents at the moment—we are committed to improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools, as well as to ensuring that special schools cater to those with the most complex needs, restoring parents’ trust that their child will get the support they need.

We have made a clear commitment to address the challenges in the SEND system as part of supporting all children to achieve and thrive. We are currently considering SEND reforms through extensive engagement—including detailed work in partnership with expert groups, local authorities, health authorities, schools and parents—that will look at the fundamentals of the system. We are taking action now to improve the system wherever we possibly can, bringing together learning from the safety valve programme, the delivering better value programme and the change programme. We are working with local authorities and schools to ensure that the £1 billion for high needs announced at the Autumn Budget is a precursor to reform and change.

Other noble Lords talked about the emphasis on early years and a child’s best start in life. Through our plan for change, this Government will give children growing up in our country the best start in life. Delivering that plan will require strengthening and joining up family services, to improve support through pregnancy and early childhood. This includes continuing to invest in and build up the family hubs and Start for Life programme. Through that, 75 of the most deprived local authorities in England have received funding to set up family hubs, with integrated Start for Life services at their core. Joining up services through family hubs provides a welcoming front door to vital support to improve the health, education and well-being of babies, children, young people and their families, and the support for parents that several noble Lords have rightly mentioned.

We are already investing in that. At the October 2024 Budget, the Government confirmed £69 million to continue the delivery of family hubs in this financial year, and the Department of Health and Social Care announced £57 million of continued funding for Start for Life services. We are investing over £500 million in 2025-26 in the Families First Partnership programme, through which we are rolling out reforms to family help, multi-agency child protection and family group decision-making. The aim of the programme is to rebalance the children’s social care system towards earlier intervention.

Several noble Lords mentioned the issue of young people not in education, employment or training, where we are determined to break down barriers to opportunity for all our young people. It is unacceptable that almost one in seven 16 to 24 year-olds in England and the UK are not in education, employment or training. That is too high; the consequences are too serious. Bringing down this number is a complex and long-standing challenge, but we are taking the action needed to tackle it. That is why we have committed to the establishment of a youth guarantee, to support access to training and apprenticeships, or support to find work for all 18 to 21 year-olds, and why we are offering two weeks of work experience for every young person and better careers advice in schools.

Several noble Lords have said that, while there are many good elements in the Bill, there is no mention of foster care. That is not an indication that this Government are not prioritising it. All of our market reforms apply to fostering services. Fostering not being included in the Bill does not mean that we are not taking forward reforms, as demonstrated by our investment in recruitment and retention.

As part of the Chancellor’s transformation fund announced in the Spring Statement, we will provide an additional £25 million over two years for foster care, which will form part of children’s social care reform. We expect that to fund the recruitment of additional fostering families, provide better peer-to-peer support for foster carers and ensure that more children in care have stability. Beyond that, we are working closely with the sector to look at how we can improve foster care further and talking to our fostering advisory board about those issues.

On the issue of information sharing and the single unique identifier, although current legislation already allows professionals to share information, we have heard that many practitioners only feel confident to do this when there is a serious child protection concern. Of course, that reluctance can lead to fragmented information across agencies, where no single professional has the full picture needed to spot emerging risks. The new duty in this Bill provides a clear legal basis to share relevant information earlier and more confidently.

Alongside that, the consistent identifier, which several noble Lords have talked about, will be used only for the specific purposes set out in the Bill. The work we are doing on that as part of the pilot will ensure that we design that appropriately to fulfil some of the requirements, demands and concerns put forward by noble Lords.

I hear those noble Lords who talked about well-being measurement. The Government support schools measuring well-being—many already do. We are looking at how to support schools to measure components of thriving, such as well-being, most effectively to support attendance, attainment and other national priorities with our opportunity mission. I would be very happy to talk further to noble Lords who are interested in that.

I feel sure that we will discuss issues around smacking in Committee. This Government are absolutely clear that no child should be subjected to violence or abuse.

We are pressing ahead. We are prioritising the well-being of children in the Bill. There will be many issues that we will discuss in detail in Committee. I am glad there has been a consensus across this House about the significance of the work that we do with respect to children. This Government have made a good start in doing that. This legislation is designed to develop that even further, and I look forward to discussing it further with noble Lords. I beg to move.

Bill read a second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 21, Schedule 1, Clauses 22 to 35, Schedule 2, Clauses 36 to 51, Schedule 3, Clauses 52 to 60, Schedule 4, Clauses 61 to 67, Title.

Motion agreed.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey (LD)]

Nobody has spoken from these Benches because we did not expect to be talking in generalities. We welcome this very important Bill. As I listened to some important contributions, I found that those people who spoke about a particular issue, were short in their comments and stuck to the point made an incredibly valuable contribution. The more I listened, the more I thought that maybe there is a case for having a purpose clause where you set out where you are going. This is a large Bill, and the amendment paper is bigger than the Bill itself. That does not happen often.

The last Bill was the famous Schools Bill from the previous Conservative Government. Had they had a purpose clause in that Schools Bill, maybe it would not have been abandoned in the way it was. Maybe they would have thought that they were going to be hijacked by the academy lobby, with the few minor changes that were suggested in that Bill, and the purpose would have been thought through. Had it not been abandoned, we would have already sorted and carried through many of the issues that we have grappled with over the past couple of years, such as unregistered schools, hundreds of thousands of children missing, home education et cetera.

I was particularly taken by the comments about music from the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet. I remind her that we have to thank a Conservative Government and Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who introduced the national curriculum, because before the national curriculum, schools could do whatever they liked. The only subject they had to teach was religious education. By having a national curriculum, we said nationally that we wanted our children to learn these subjects. My view now is that we should have a national curriculum, but that the national curriculum must leave space to do other things as well, and I think that is a common view. Going back to the contribution by the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, in which she talked about music, it is about not only the national curriculum but the dreaded EBacc, which has seen the number of people studying music in schools plummet as a result of its attack on creative education.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, on her speech. It was spot on, and it made me think quite clearly. I think that Part 1 is going to make a huge difference to children and families. Some of the amendments to Part 1, whether on kinship carers or whatever, will be life-changing if they are agreed.

On Part 2, we are clearly going to be divided. I have nothing particularly against academies. I am involved with an academy. I think we want to take the best of what academies do and make it available for all schools, perhaps in a reformed way, but I also want to do away with the excesses that academies seek. Academies should not be deciding—I am doing what I should not be doing. I am doing a general debate. Stop it. I want to look at particular issues.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, started quite rightly. Governments of all political persuasions, when there is a problem that they do not know how to solve, often get an expert. They drag an expert in and say, “We want you to look at this problem”. Nine times out of 10, they do not follow through on the recommendations, or they just take part of the recommendations. With safeguarding, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is absolutely right that Eileen Munro, an expert in her field, put forward some important recommendations, and they were quite rightly being piloted. We should learn from that piloting whether that is the way we should go. The Government must show what the evaluations of those pilots have shown. That is not a shameful thing. It is a sensible thing to do. If the evaluations show that, yes, this is great, let us do it. If they show that there are problems, perhaps we need to modify what we are doing. I hope the Government will think along those lines.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Nash, that I remember being very proud of serving on the Children and Families Act 2014 Committee. I think everyone on that committee felt that we had done a good job. It was one of those Bills that you actually enjoyed being involved with. At the end, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, organised a sort of celebration where we all got certificates and awards for various contributions we had made to the Bill.

However, on reflection, I wish we had piloted some of the key recommendations. Education, health and care plans are, quite frankly, in an appalling mess. Maybe we should have piloted those proposals to see whether they worked and got an evaluation. We would have then known the correct way to go. We should never have got rid of school action and school action plus. We should have kept general special needs in schools. That has gone, at the expense of education, health and care plans.

I end by assuring the Government that we will be constructive in everything we do, and we will support amendments, wherever they come across the Chamber, if we think they will actually enhance opportunities for families and young people.

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

My Lords, I thank noble Lords, not only those who have contributed today but those who have already contributed to the discussions on this important Bill at Second Reading. In fact, people enjoyed Second Reading so much that they decided they would have another go today.

The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, accused me of wanting to dismiss any amendments. That is wholly wrong; I want to get on to discuss the detail of those amendments in this Committee, as is the function of this stage. On this occasion, I fear that Amendment 1 not only is unnecessary but has been tabled to delay our detailed consideration of the significant legislation before us.

First, from a legal perspective, the proposed new clause would not have meaningful, practical effect. Secondly, on the point that many noble Lords have referred to about being clear about the purpose, intent and the outcome of this Bill, Ministers in the other place and at the Bill’s Second Reading in this place have been clear about the purpose of this critical legislation. I will use this as an opportunity to remind the Committee of what the Bill will achieve. This is a landmark Bill that will reform both children’s social care and education to ensure that, for all our children, background does not mean destiny and that at every stage of life, young people are supported to achieve and thrive.

As is already outlined in the Bill’s policy summary notes, the Bill has seven key ambitions. Its Explanatory Notes set out what each measure in the Bill aims to achieve and how it will do so. There will rightly be ample time in Committee to discuss these in the detail they deserve, and to listen to concerns and issues that have been raised by noble Lords and others. I hope to provide assurance on those or, where necessary, change them.

An ambition running through the whole Bill is to make up for lost time—14 years in fact—when action could have been taken to strengthen child safeguarding, to ensure that no young person slips out of sight of the agencies designed to advance their education and opportunities, and to set a minimum, a floor but no ceiling, on the standards we expect in every school across our country to enable every child to achieve and thrive.

In Part 1, the Government aim to keep families together and children safe, to support children with care experience to achieve and thrive, and to fix and support the care placement market. Importantly, the Bill will help more families to thrive together, while keeping children safe from harm and supporting them to succeed. Through the introduction of a duty on local authorities to offer a family group decision-making meeting—which I hope we will come on to discuss shortly—we are prioritising helping families and tackling problems before they become crises. This model builds on what we know works well.

Keeping children safe is a key purpose of the Bill. That is why, after years of inaction under the previous Government, we are legislating to stop children falling through the cracks and to ensure they are not out of sight of those who can keep them safe. As we will come on to discuss today and later in Committee, this is why we are legislating to introduce a single unique identifier, registers of children not in school, and new duties around information sharing. The Bill will also allow for more effective intervention when children are at the greatest risk of harm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I speak in support of this amendment and wish the Government to explore whether it is possible at an earlier stage for these meetings to be considered.

My noble friend referred to the delay, with parents saying that there was going to be a meeting and not turning up to it. As I read the amendment, it includes

“parents or any other person with parental responsibility for the child”,

who must be offered the meeting. There may be circumstances in which the court has previously made a special guardianship order that leaves the parents with only aspects of parental responsibility, which are to be told of a name change or to be told that the child will be leaving the jurisdiction. That is a very limited amount of parental responsibility. If for whatever reason—often due to illness of the special guardian—the risks rematerialise and you are back into care proceedings, is it envisaged that such parents, who may not have heard anything for a number of years because the child has not left the jurisdiction and not had their name changed, will be included in the mandatory duty to be offered to be part of this decision-making process? If that is the case, if the logic is correct, you are stacking the cards for the situation that my noble friend has mentioned where parents are suddenly back involved and then delay the meeting. How would this provision sit with an existing special guardianship order that has that effect on parental responsibility?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Good. I mean that it is good that we are now into the detail of what it is that we are here to consider. I am very pleased at the support and welcome for the process of family group decision-making, which I know is behind all the amendments and contributions that have been made today.

This measure places a duty on local authorities to offer a family group decision-making meeting to the child’s parents, or any other person with parental responsibility for the child, before an application for a care or supervision order is made. This Government want to help more families to stay together by mandating the offer of a family group decision-making meeting for every family at the point before it is necessary to initiate care proceedings for a child. I very much appreciate the intentions of the amendments that have been tabled, which tally with the Government’s aim to maximise the impact of family group decision-making. But I hope, therefore, that I can reassure noble Lords that these amendments are not necessary to achieve that.

I know that the amendments seek to balance the provision of family group decision-making with the need to avoid delay to child arrangements proceedings or permanent arrangements. I think we have been supported in this consideration today by the considerable expertise of noble, and noble and learned, Lords, but we believe that this balance is already provided by the existing statutory frameworks and guidance.

I agree very much with the noble Baroness that all family networks should have the chance to benefit from the transformative family group decision-making process at multiple points in their journeys with children’s services. I think the argument being used is that if this is as effective as it is, should families not have the opportunity to benefit at different stages? The Government wholeheartedly agree with that. Indeed, in relation to Amendment 2, the Working Together statutory safeguarding guidance makes this clear and sets out the activities that a local authority and its partners should undertake where there are child protection concerns under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989. This includes the use of family group decision-making as part of child protection planning.

I understand the points made by noble Lords that using this as early as possible in the child’s journey and repeating it as necessary is important: that is in fact what local authorities are encouraged to do. Again, on the point about the evidence, the £45 million Families First for Children pathfinder and the Family Network pilot aim to make greater use of family networks, involving them in decision-making at an earlier stage and providing practical and financial support via family network support packages to help keep children safe at home. There is, as noble Lords have mentioned, robust evidence from research which shows that children can be diverted from care when family group decision-making is offered at the pre-proceedings stage.

I come to the reason that the legislation focuses the duty at the point it does. The new duty for family group decision-making to be made at the pre-proceedings stage ensures that every parent is given the offer at this critical stage before care proceedings are initiated. This voluntary process enables a family network to come together and make a family-led plan in response to concerns around a child’s safety and well-being. We are confident that the new duty, alongside the existing framework for child protection, is sufficient to support children to stay at home safely where this is possible.

The noble and learned Lord identified that there is a very clear message set by making the statutory duty in this legislation that there is an expectation at the point of the use of a family group decision-making process, but that is in order to emphasise at the point at which we believe, from the evidence, that it will certainly be able to prevent more children going through the process of being taken into care. That is not to say that it is not beneficial at other stages. I hope and believe that, both through the statutory guidance and through guidance that already exists, we be able to make that very clear to local authorities. There is robust evidence from research which shows that children can be diverted from care when family group decision-making is offered at the pre-proceedings stage.

Amendment 15 seeks to ensure that, in providing for family group decision-making, there is a child-centric approach that accounts for the best interests of children under two. I wholly understand the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about the need to ensure the best interests of the child, particularly at such a young age. Of course, local authorities already have a duty to act in the best interests of the child, and that includes consideration of their age. Equally, if it is not in the child’s best interest for family group decision-making to take place, the offer should not be made to the family. This is an important point. We need to be clear that the offer is in the child’s best interests for it to be effective. Local authorities may also withdraw the offer of a meeting if it is no longer in the best interests of the child for the meeting to take place. I hope that that partially responds to the points made about delay and about others not being able to use the meeting process as a way of delaying or bringing other pressures to bear on the family environment.

On Amendment 16, the Government are committed to reducing unnecessary delay in the family courts and securing timely outcomes for children. However, as I have already identified, Clause 1 relates to a specific point before court proceedings are initiated, where robust evidence shows that strengthening the offer of family group decision-making will reduce family court applications and prevent children entering the care system. On some of the particular questions about delays, I can assure noble Lords, as was suggested, that these points about delay will be covered in statutory guidance. I think I have already made it clear that a local authority will be able to withdraw the offer of the meeting or the process if it believes that it is being used for delay, which would clearly not be in the best interests of the child. On the point about whether it will delay interim and emergency orders, I am pretty confident that it will not, but I am prepared, because it is an important point, to come back to noble Lords in writing.

We are therefore confident that no provisions in Clause 1 would result in an extension to the 26-week limit for care proceedings, which starts, of course, when an application for a care order is made—in other words, after the point at which the family group decision-making process is used. I hope that I have managed to reassure noble Lords about what would happen if other things were to cause delay in the proceedings and reassure them that we believe in, and have evidence for, the efficacy of this process. That is why, although this is a statutory duty at one point in the process, we are very clear and will continue to encourage and develop, through the Families First programme, the use of family group decision-making at all stages of the process, because of its effectiveness. I hope that has reassured all noble Lords and that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, I would be grateful if she would outline the response—maybe she needs to write to me—on the specific situation that I raised in relation to special guardianship orders. I recognise that there is a best-interest test, but, as the main clause of the Bill reads at the moment, parents with that limited parental responsibility are covered by the duty and it would be good to have some clarification.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I cannot answer that today, but I certainly undertake to write to noble Lords on that important point and that juxtaposition in relationship.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. It is a privilege to have the experience of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and others around the House on this. In response to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on our drafting, I feel I need to make a general plea for noble Lords to listen to the intent of what we are trying to do rather than focus on the specific wording. We were not intending to change the spirit of the Bill on pre- proceedings.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, which I have co-signed.

Family group conferencing was born out of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 in New Zealand, whereby families became key participants in a process of decision-making. Family group conferences are now used in approximately 30 countries worldwide and in at least 22 countries in Europe. Indeed, research has shown that children whose families were referred to a family group conferencing at the pre-proceedings stage were significantly less likely to be in care 12 months later than those whose families were not so referred. This should not be a surprise to your Lordships, as such preparation and discussions offer a compelling opportunity for families to come together and unite around important decisions for their child, which has the benefit of making that child feel loved and wanted, as well as the ability to address with professionals any glaring gaps in the child’s well-being.

Amendment 3 is a simple amendment that seeks to extend the right to family group decision-making meetings to children aged 16 and 17. It is surely important that we allow children who are on the brink of adulthood to take part in decisions that could materially affect their lives. That would appear to be eminently sensible. At the age of 16, a child can agree to their own care plan, so by that very same logic it is fair and reasonable that they are involved in the family group decision-making process. This is a family-led process and is absolutely essential in keeping children with their families where possible. We should be avoiding at all costs children going into care; that should be the absolute last resort. So, allowing 16 and 17 year-olds to share their voice and their opinions would ensure that this process is as child-focused and effective as it can be. It is essential that family group decision-making is done right, and ensuring that older children are able to contribute would be an extremely positive step in that direction.

I am very pleased to see that I believe this sentiment is shared by the noble Baronesses, Lady Armstrong, Lady Longfield and Lady Drake, with the amendment tabled in their names. Proposed new subsection (7A)(c) in their Amendment 12 seeks to achieve what the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, and I are aiming for, and we very much hope there will be cross-party support from other noble Lords on this important foundation stone.

Amendments 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, seek to set out key principles when implementing the family group decision-making process. Amendment 7 seeks to ensure that there is a process that accompanies these meetings. It is important that they are not isolated events but that instead the process is child-led and includes the family throughout.

Amendment 8 is similar in spirit to Amendment 5, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which will be debated later, so I shall only briefly touch on the issues, but we absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, that a trained co-ordinator would prove an excellent addition to the family group decision-making team.

Amendment 9 rightly notes that an essential part of a proposal regarding concerns about a child’s welfare is the implementation of the proposal so that the best outcomes for that child can be put in place.

Amendments 10 and 11 seek to ensure that the parents or those with parental responsibility for the child, rather than the local authority, agree as to who may attend the family group decision-making meeting. It is important that those who know the child ensure that the relevant voices are heard.

Amendment 19 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, with its proposed new clause after Clause 1, aims to ensure that there is proper oversight of the child protection plan if a child under the age of five is subject to care proceedings. It is of critical importance that the matter of the child having been significantly harmed or being at risk of the same is kept in view given the general length of proceedings and the risk of harm during them. Many local authorities discharge the child protection plan and associated formal processes when the proceedings are issued; the child’s care also often moves to the court social work team. Many of these children are living with the parents where the harm, or risk of it, is happening, and this is why they must be protected during proceedings, which run on average for 52 weeks. Their protection and arrangements for formal monitoring must be maintained at all costs. Indeed, the risk to the child might actually be raised during proceedings given the pressure on their parent or parents.

We acknowledge that this amendment has a potentially arbitrary cut-off, but it does cover preschool-age children, who all too often have been the subject of serious case incidents, when the tragedy of a child losing their life or being seriously harmed has occurred. This amendment aims to be the grit in the system that ensures that a senior, fresh pair of eyes looks at such cases to ensure that a child protection plan is not ceased without their approval.

Regarding specific amendments concerning child attendance at these meetings, set out in Amendments 13 and 14, we regret that we do not support proposals that would permit children to attend these meetings. Of course, as we have heard from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, the voice of the child is crucially important, but we are concerned that the attendance by the child could potentially be traumatising, create a sense of rejection and constrain necessary conversation. This must be child-centric and the child must be heard, but possibly not in these meetings.

Amendment 18 in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer seeks to ensure that the changing needs of the child are considered throughout childhood. It is important to recognise the changing family landscape and, as such, this amendment is a sensible one as the “family network” may be able to support the child. If that is possible, the local authority should take action so that the child can benefit from such support as and when it becomes possible.

In conclusion, family group decision-making has tremendous potential to transform outcomes for vulnerable children, but only if we achieve the scope and implementation correctly. We urge careful consideration of these amendments to ensure that this promising approach will deliver on its full potential.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps I might say how both interesting and informative I found the contributions on this group of amendments. It is something to be in this House and be able to hear the experiences of those, like my noble friend Lady Armstrong, who has experience as a social worker and a long history of campaigning and policy-making in this area, my noble friend Lady Longfield, who, of course, was an important and impactful Children’s Commissioner, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who just gave us a small exposition of the enormous experience that she has in this area—and many others, as well, who have made important points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I very much welcome my noble friend’s recognition of the importance of the voice of the child, but the point was made from around the Committee that the principle derives from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. She did not mention children’s rights in the UN convention, so it would be reassuring if she put on the record that she acknowledges that this is an important thread that runs through many of the provisions in the Bill.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We recognise that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is an important thread, but that does not necessarily mean that it can be used as a trump card on every future occasion, which I am sure my noble friend would not choose to do. I think I clearly said that the rights and voice of the child have to be absolutely at the heart not only of the Bill but of the way in which it is implemented throughout children’s social care.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I just wonder whether the Minister was referring to my Amendment 17, rather than my Amendment 19, in her response. She talked about not making an assumption that a child would need a child protection plan if they were going into kinship care, which is linked more to Amendment 17. Amendment 19 is about the plan not being dropped for a child under five who is already on a child protection plan and goes into care proceedings. I am very happy for her to pick that up in another group, if we are allowed, but I wonder whether there has been some confusion.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It may be that in part of my response I pre-empted the point that the noble Baroness is making in Amendment 17, but I did recognise the point about Amendment 19, which I think the noble Baroness made, about the process in place to discharge that particular child protection plan. On that, I outlined that we are confident that the current system and the strengthened focus on multiagency child protection are robust and that there is sufficient accountability around discharging child protection plans. If I have not sufficiently reassured the noble Baroness about that, I am willing to write to clarify the points I was trying to make on that amendment.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her reply, which was very encouraging, as especially was the spirit in which the debate happened. Things seem to have calmed somewhat.

I did not quite get what I wanted, so I will reserve the right to think about it for Report, but I hope we can keep the dialogue going. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I have already expressed my views on Amendment 4, but I think I need to emphasise, particularly as my noble and learned friend has just made the same point, that I think it is unrealistic and unnecessary for private law cases. Many disputes resolved in private law cases are minor and concern perfectly manageable—I will not say “trivial”—problems over contact arrangements and so forth. That cannot justify a family group meeting.

In any event, as my noble and learned friend has said, the existing mechanisms are already well tuned to dealing with disputes. Cafcass gets involved at an early stage; there is what is called a safeguarding report; and if the dispute does not go away, Cafcass produces a Section 7 report. Along the way, there is a dispute resolution hearing in front of the judge, and noble Lords can take it from me that the judge applies a fair amount of pressure to resolve the matter and to explore the realities of settling the case, which quite often involves exploring what can be done with the wider family. Of course, the wider family may have the time and the resources that the parents lack and help sort it out, but it does not really need a meeting; it just needs someone getting the parties in a room in the court with the Cafcass officer to sort out the practical realities of where things are going. I wish to emphasise that I do not think that Amendment 4 will assist.

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

I recognise that the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is to test the extent to which family group decision-making can be used in other circumstances. I think it is a tribute to the significance and efficacy of family group decision-making that people are so keen to test where else it can be used in the process. I will respond to the two examples that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has identified and then address Amendment 17.

As we have heard, Amendment 4 would extend family group decision-making and, I have to say, was ably opposed by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I appreciate the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, in seeking to ensure that as many families as possible are offered the opportunity of family group decision-making, including those outside of public law proceedings. The Government recognise the importance of supporting families in private law proceedings. We want to help families resolve their issues quickly and without coming to court. That is why there are already requirements and processes—one of which the noble and learned Baroness talked about—that support families at this point. There is already a requirement, for example, that anyone wishing to make a private family law application must attend a mediation information and assessment meeting to discuss options to resolve their issue outside court, through mediation or other means. The Government also fund the family mediation voucher scheme, providing families £500 towards the cost of mediation. This scheme has helped nearly 40,000 separating parents. The noble and learned Baroness talked about other alternatives as well.

On the Section 7 welfare report, the explanation was ably given by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, but my understanding is that, as a welfare report, it can be requested by the court in any family proceedings where there are concerns about the welfare of a child. It is mostly done in private court proceedings, by the local authority if it is involved or by Cafcass if not. I am not convinced, for many of the reasons we have talked about, that this would be an appropriate point to mandate a family group decision-making meeting. I hope the noble Baroness is reassured about the other routes for supporting families in these cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, I support this amendment. Clearly, the family decision-making groups are extremely important, and we are discovering them rather late in the day. I could have said this on any of the other amendments involving family groups, but this one particularly caught my eye because of the emphasis on an evidence-based approach. The Scottish Government have had this for nearly 10 years, which gives us a tremendous opportunity to learn from the successes and failures they have experienced over that time. How much contact has the Minister had with her Scottish colleagues to learn from the best and the worst, and what has she taken from that to put into this Bill?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The fifth group we are debating comprises only one amendment, but we have had some useful contributions. However, quite a few of the arguments that I would make in response to this group were those that I made earlier in response to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Armstrong on the need for evidence-based practice and on the use of proven approaches such as that of family group conferencing. I will repeat some of the points I made and respond to some of the particular issues that have arisen.

On the last point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, I do not know the extent to which we have reviewed the experience in Scotland, but as we discussed earlier, we have looked extremely carefully at the research carried out by Foundations that we talked about earlier and the recommendations and approach that it brought forward.

I agree with the intention behind this amendment that we should ensure that family group decision-making follows an evidence-based approach and is co-ordinated by trained facilitators. That is very important, and I liked the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on this point about qualifications, and in this particular context he has identified a little discrepancy in the position of some noble Lords opposite.

The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, refers to the LGA saying that it thought that we should make it clear in guidance what that evidenced-based approach is. I wholly agree with him and the LGA, and that is why we will use statutory guidance to set out clear principles of practice, building on the evidence from successful models, such as the family group conference approach, to ensure that all families are offered quality family group decision-making. That includes people being trained to do it.

On the point about independent co-ordination, I made the point earlier that while I think that in the vast majority of cases it is right that there is independent facilitation, there might be circumstances where the family want the process to be run by a social worker who is somebody they have a very strong ongoing relationship with.

On the point about private family time, it is obviously an important potential part of the process that the family have the opportunity together, with appropriate preparation, to consider what would be appropriate for them, but here as well there could be circumstances—the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, referred to the issue of domestic abuse, for example—in which it would not be appropriate to leave only the family to lead that decision-making if there were fears that there was a dynamic within the family that perhaps made it important for there to be somebody else as part of that process. I think people could envisage a situation in which that happened.

This is not to say—I think this charge was made earlier —that the Government take a laissez-faire approach to the way in which family group decision-making is developed. We do not want to see a thousand flowers bloom, as was suggested by my noble friend Lady Armstrong earlier on; we want to see the right evidenced-based flowers blooming. In order to make sure that is the case, we will be very clear in the statutory guidance about the approach that needs to be taken when organising family group decision-making. I hope I was clear about that earlier on.

There is also a need to ensure that suitable people and resources are there, and that is why the Government have committed to an uplift of £13 million for the children’s social care prevention grant for 2025-26, which will be used to support the rollout of family group decision-making across the country for all families on the edge of care, including for recruiting or training extra staff to facilitate that process. On the basis of those assurances, I hope the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. It is important for all these children that we do everything we can to make sure that these processes can be implemented successfully, and ensuring that an evidence-based approach is followed is a key part of this. I briefly flag in particular the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, who said that this is a key last line of defence. It is extremely regrettable that we cannot fix all the problems—there will be issues that get through the net—and that is exactly why we need a key last line of defence to help with those problems.

I will also briefly flag the contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, and the noble Lord, Lord Agnew. They absolutely correctly pointed out that the evidence from Scotland is that the execution of the plan is critical, and an evidence-based approach is crucial. We would be well advised to learn from the experience of what has been taking place over the past 10 years and, I hope, take all the positives and learn from the negatives. On that basis, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after such knowledgeable contributions from all noble Lords. It is fair to say that all the amendments in this group are wrestling with the same issues, which have been raised by the Children’s Commissioner and by the independent review into child social care, led by the honourable member for Whitehaven and Workington.

We want to include education and childcare agencies in safeguarding arrangements. Indeed, schools already play a huge part in this area and make a significant percentage of safeguarding referrals where they have concerns about a child. But in practice it is hard, because of the number of organisations and their differing size and capacity.

We have heard from all sides on this, with many calling for full statutory partner status for education and childcare—such as in Amendment 24 from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield—while others are worried about workability. We fear that we may err on the side of caution regarding how full statutory partner status could work in practice, although we will of course reflect on the points made by all noble Lords.

We support the aims of Amendments 21 to 23 from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, who has such a depth of experience and understanding of these areas in general and of family hubs in particular. Amendments 20 and 25, from the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Bichard, aspire to have an inclusive and non-bureaucratic approach to these arrangements. Naturally, we fully support Amendments 26 to 28, from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, everybody who has contributed to this group has recognised that education and childcare are fundamental at all levels of safeguarding arrangements. The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, was right that there is a range of approaches to this, from those who argue that education needs to be a statutory safeguarding partner to those who, understandably, question how the Government’s proposals in this clause will work in practice, and I hope to bring a bit of clarity to that in my response.

We can all agree that education and childcare settings should be consistently involved in multiagency safe- guarding arrangements across England, and that is what this clause sets out to do. On the Clause 2 stand part notice, by strengthening the role of education in multiagency safeguarding arrangements, Clause 2 recognises that crucial role that education and childcare settings play in keeping children safe. The evidence of the way in which education has tended to be involved in safeguarding is that while in many schools there are reasonably well developed processes for safeguarding, including designated safeguarding leads and, of course, the focus that they are able to put on it, and while there are lots of places in the country where schools are being well engaged in safeguarding arrangements, it is not true, generally, that the whole breadth of education and childcare settings is engaged in that. My noble friend Lady Longfield made an important point about early years settings and their ability to contribute here, and of course FE colleges are far less frequently engaged in safeguarding arrangements.

The intention behind this clause is to ensure that education and childcare settings are consistently involved in multiagency safeguarding arrangements across England so that opportunities to keep children safe are not missed and we reduce the risk of children falling through the cracks between services. It places duties on those existing safeguarding partners—the local authority, police and integrated care boards—automatically to include all education and childcare settings in their arrangements. This will help to ensure that they work together to identify and respond to the needs of children in their area and that they consider in the fora in which safeguarding is pursued in these areas the relationships and processes that are necessary to ensure that the voice and knowledge of education and childcare settings are included in safeguarding arrangements. Where this is happening, we see improved communication between the safeguarding partnership and education, better information sharing and more opportunities to influence key strategic safeguarding decisions. This will also mean that all education and childcare settings must co-operate with safeguarding partners, ensuring that those arrangements are fully understood and rigorously applied in their organisations.

Turning to Amendments 26, 27 and 28 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I appreciate the point made that we need to understand how this will operate in practice and to understand the burdens and costs for education and childcare settings. On how it will operate in practice, the point I was making previously is that we are beginning to see how, where education and childcare are properly included, local authorities are resolving some of the practical issues that the noble Baroness raised and are finding the relationships, the forms of communication and the fora necessary to enable education and childcare to be properly represented in safeguarding arrangements, but she makes a fair challenge to me to explain a little bit more about how that is working. Perhaps I can write to noble Lords with some examples of how we would expect to see this operating in practice.

There are a couple of specific points that I can respond to today. First, on the point about identifying a single point of contact to be involved in safeguarding, if we are not careful, mandating that that happens would incur duplication, and new burdens and resourcing pressures, as there is no single point of accountability for the sector at the moment. I do not think the noble Baroness was suggesting that new posts should be created for this role.

She specifically asked about the role of the LADO. Can I be clear that the LADO role would not be appropriate to support education and childcare settings with their safeguarding responsibilities with respect to this clause unless it was in relation to allegations against people who work with children? That is the specific responsibility of the LADO and where this is the case of course the LADO can be contacted. But that would not be appropriate to be a single point of contact for safeguarding arrangements in this context. Through this legislation, as I think I have suggested, safeguarding partners should be continuing to strengthen existing relationships with education and childcare settings to ensure that there is join-up and an enhanced role in safeguarding arrangements.

On the point about accountability, we need to understand and have sight of how this is working. The Secretary of State has oversight of yearly reports by local children’s safeguarding partnerships which must include scrutiny by an independent person of the effectiveness of the arrangements. We will support safeguarding partners to ensure that this includes the representation of education. Through those yearly reports we will be able to see how education and childcare settings are being included in the safeguarding partnerships.

I turn to Amendments 20 and 25, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Bichard—introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton—and Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. They relate to the suggestion that education should become the fourth statutory safeguarding partner, and I think this was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. There are considerable difficulties in terms of structure and accountability with making education and childcare a statutory partner in the way in which he suggests. There is no organisation or individual who can take on the equivalent duties as a safeguarding partner for education.

I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, to the House. I am sure that her expertise in all areas of education and children’s social care will be important and helpful for us in our deliberations. She identified that a wide range of education and childcare settings would not be able to take on the equivalent duties as a safeguarding partner for education, because the expectation for those three statutory safeguarding partners is, first, that they have the authority to make decisions for all settings; secondly, that they are able to commit funding on behalf of all settings; and, thirdly, that they are able to represent the views of all settings.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, we have not got any amendments in this group, but I will make a few observations. First, it is really important we get this right and we have the opportunity to do so between Committee and Report.

I have personal experience of multi-agency working in terms of child protection—not a great deal, but a few cases. The thing that nobody has mentioned is that, when a member of staff has left the job or moved to another authority, the whole process grinds to a halt; the new person who is busy looking at the case files is not able to benefit from the knowledge that has been gained. It is often very disruptive.

Often in Committee, somebody will get up and make a point that you have never really thought about. When the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, had finished, I thought, “Absolutely right”. But I had not thought about the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and he is absolutely right: in terms of police involvement, there can be a real conflict. It just proved to me, yet again, the importance of sharing these ideas so that we get a result which is actually workable.

It is interesting that the Children’s Commissioner suggests a

“threshold for assessment and support”

to bring greater consistency. This also picks up on the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raised about resources—that it is important that we get the resources absolutely right.

I was interested in the point about sharing practice with those practitioners—that they do not come with their own particular viewpoint but have that training and expertise to share and listen. Cross-border working can be very difficult indeed and can sometimes cause real issues as well, but, if we listen to each other, we can get this right.

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

My Lords, as we start on these amendments relating to the operational delivery of multi-agency child protection teams, I will just respond to a few general points before I go into the details of the points that have been made and the amendments.

First, on the point the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, made both today and on Tuesday, it is not true that there is no support for these arrangements among local authority children’s services and organisations concerned about child protection and keeping children safe. There is plenty of support. Nor has this idea somehow or other fallen out of the sky. In fact, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, gave us a good explanation of the history of this. Of course, last autumn this Government published Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive, which included the provisions that are in this legislation. So there has been plenty of time, and in fact the department has taken the opportunity to talk to a broad range of professionals and others about how we will ensure that all the provisions in the Bill work properly.

The provisions in Clause 3 particularly relate to the duty to protect children with respect to the legislative arrangements on child protection. The experience of child protection is that too often, this most difficult and crucial area of children’s social work has been carried out by social workers who are perhaps less experienced and not necessarily experts in child protection. They have had to do it without the full story of the children they are trying to protect, because of the lack of the strongest possible input from a range of different agencies to create that full story about the child and their needs, in order to ensure that they are protected properly.

On one of the concerns expressed by Professor Munro, as I emphasised on Tuesday, these provisions do not downgrade the quality or nature of social workers who will be working on child protection. They will increase the likelihood that the most experienced social workers will be working in the most difficult area. We are clear that a fully qualified social worker will be responsible within the multi-agency child protection team. Equally, in family help, where the worker is dealing with a child about which there are child protection concerns, that will also be a fully qualified social worker.

On the detail of this and how we got here in the first place, as many noble Lords have said, both today and in other debates on the Bill, nothing is more important than keeping children safe. Ineffective multi-agency working is a key factor where child protection activity fails, and, despite existing legislation, day-to-day operations can be inconsistent and ineffective. In its review, the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel found that inexperienced practitioners, ineffective multi-agency working and poor information-sharing within and between agencies results in missed opportunities to protect children. As I said, this is a situation I am sure all of us are keen to improve.

Often, several practitioners have information about a child and their family but the lack of joint working means that vital opportunities are missed to protect children from serious harm—for example, the GP treating a parent for their substance misuse, the school that notices a child arriving unwashed and unfed, and the police involved in call-outs for domestic abuse. But no one has the whole picture of the day-to-day life of the child. Early results from the 10 local area pathfinders for Families First—a programme that, as we discussed on Tuesday, is embedding family help, multi-agency child protection and family group decision-making in a single integrated system—demonstrate better management of complex issues, reducing crisis points and enabling quicker, effective interventions where children need protection.

I hear again the calls for publishing the first part of the pathfinders evaluation, which I wholly understand. I hope, even if it is slightly later than spring, that it will be available—I know it will be available for the development of these teams. But we are not even waiting for that. We are using already the experiences of those who are going through the pathfinders to help support practice in other local authority areas, through webinars and through the opportunity to share not just good practice but the challenges they are finding. The fact that some pathfinders are finding some things difficult is precisely the point of having a pathfinder: so that you can work out what works, where you might need to change things, how you are going to operationalise it and what additional support might be needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister on one point that she raised. I can hear that she feels that the accountability point is probably going to be okay, but, to combine a couple of things that she mentioned, the team can call on the right skills at the right time. That is obviously a major argument for this team. The only skills that the police really bring, because they are not child protection experts or experts in children’s development, is the ability to investigate crime; they bring nothing else to the table, really, apart from the fact that they are generally, I hope, innately nice people and reasonable people. I am not saying that they have no skills—that is really not my point—but the professional skills they bring to the table and the professional powers which are invested in them by law are all about how they investigate. If the team turns to them and says, “So it is your turn now to go and see this father”, or this mother, actually, that is not for them to call; that is for the police to call. That is the fundamental thing.

While I am on my feet, and to save a later interruption, although the Minister may be coming to it, on the point that has been identified about the gap in knowledge where each of the agencies holds data that the others may not have access to, that is why the MASHs were created. That is why we have people sat in groups around the country, as has been mentioned already. That is what they are supposed to be doing. It may be that this report has concluded they are not doing it as well as they could, but I am not sure this team is going to fill the gap. That is what the MASHs were really intended to do.

My final point is on the evaluation, which I know the Minister said is going to be published. The only piece of data I will be really interested in is how many fewer children got hurt or died, or whose development was not interrupted, or to what extent the satisfaction of the families involved was enhanced, as a result of this team’s intervention. They are the two core issues: basically, did kids get protected more by getting hurt less, and can we prove it? The rest, I am afraid, is a bit soft, in my view.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord on his final point. That is exactly the objective in what we are trying to do here. Whether or not the evaluation, after a relatively short period of time, will give us conclusive proof about that, I would be unsure, but that is absolutely the objective.

Working backwards through the noble Lord’s points, I think he is right that the police play a very important role in multi-agency safeguarding hubs. But that, of course, is what happens at the point at which people or other agencies are thinking about referring into the system. Quite often, it helps to provide earlier support or more clarity about whether or not children should be being referred into the system. It is not specifically about child protection, which, as I was saying at the beginning, is probably the most difficult and the most crucial point in thinking about the point at which the child is in the system.

I am surprised at the noble Lord, because I think he undersells what police officers do. He knows that the officers that he was responsible for would have known, when they were being called out to domestic abuse cases, what intelligence they had about the likelihood of children being exploited through gangs or in other ways. They would have known who in the local community were, frankly, getting into trouble and whose children were therefore likely to be in danger. They would have known the events that had happened that had brought disharmony or difficulties into communities. They would have known who was taking drugs and who was dealing them. All of that information, you could imagine, could you not, at the right point in the consideration of a child’s case, would be really, really important for getting that full story about the child. That is why I think it is right that police are involved in this.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raised the point about funding, which is a fair point. That is why, as I have previously talked about and will talk about again, there is more investment for this initiative that the Government have put in place, but I would also, as I think I have been saying, be clear to policing that this is part of their responsibility. In very many police forces, they are recognising that the multi-agency child protection team enables that to be as effective as possible in the way in which it is put together.

Turning to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, and spoken to today by the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, which seek to include social workers with expertise in working with children with disabilities in the multi-agency teams, I absolutely agree that the teams should be equipped to identify, understand and respond effectively to all children and their families. I reassure the noble Baroness that there is, as I was describing earlier, already sufficient flexibility for safeguarding partners to determine which social work and health practitioners are most suited to work in these teams. I could imagine that there would be times when it would be appropriate to have a social worker or a health worker with expertise in disability involved.

The point is that it is important to determine in the legislation, as this Bill does, who the key, compulsory members of the team are, then to have in regulations the other agencies that could be called on to support the multi-agency child protection team. It is just not appropriate to list in the legislation every single agency or worker who might potentially be involved, but that does not mean that they are not important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, for several reasons I support Amendment 37 from my noble friend Lady Barran. She and others have spoken about the enormous amount of change being imposed on the sector, both to current structures and prospectively with local government reorganisation and with many processes through these reforms.

We have now heard from enough people here and outside to think that there is good reason to be concerned about poor decision-making arising from the blurring of early help, targeted support, work with children in need and child protection. There are potentially parallels with the SEND reforms a few years ago, when a new model was expected to simplify and reduce costs, and reduce numbers in the system, but has, sadly, done the opposite. On the points that have been made about the blurring of accountability, there is again reason to be concerned.

I was part of a national implementation board after the care review and, in that process, I was struck, more than in most government processes I have been involved with, that many people seemed to find it hard to say what they really thought to Ministers. They perhaps pulled punches a little bit. It is incredibly important to make sure that there is a report that all can see and that is really transparent about how these reforms are working in practice.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We have come on to more understandable consideration of how the teams will work in practice, particularly with respect to local authority responsibility. Multi-agency child protection teams will be effective only if they are truly multi-agency. There is an understandable concern here about the significance of the role of local authorities, but it is probably also worth remembering, as we discussed on Tuesday, that safeguarding partners—local authorities, health and police—have joint and equal responsibilities for safeguarding in legislation. Through the multi-agency child protection teams, we are trying to ensure that day to day, in operational terms, with respect to individual children and cases, there is a practical way for those responsibilities, and the information that those agencies may have, to be brought together in that full picture about the child.

I spoke earlier about the findings from the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel on child protection. To tackle the issues it identified, we need, as I have suggested, multi-agency experts in a room together, sharing information and bringing their different perspectives to decisions that protect children. It is important that we ensure the right people are deployed to those teams so that expert, swift and decisive action is taken to protect children, and we recognise the importance of safeguarding partners reporting on the impact of their arrangements to make sure that is happening. We need to base that, as has been the argument on other parts of the Bill, on the best possible evidence, which is both the professional work that constituted the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel and, as others have mentioned, the independent review by my honourable friend Josh MacAlister.

Of course, we also need the evaluation that noble Lords have talked about. It will come in more than one stage. There will be evaluation of the process and some of the practicalities of setting up the process that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, referenced, and, later, of the impact of the teams.

Amendment 30 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks local discretion in multi-agency team membership and organisation. Requiring safeguarding partners to nominate a minimum team reflects partners’ collective duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area. They will also have, as I outlined in the previous group, flexibility to add other agencies or individuals, reflecting local needs and to tackle local harms. We know from Families First pathfinders that these teams are already making a real difference. In Ofsted’s recent inspection of children’s services, Dorset, one of the pathfinders, received an “outstanding” judgment. The report noted that when children are at risk of significant harm, strategy meetings are well attended by partner agencies and that effective information-sharing and analysis of risk lead to children receiving the right intervention and support. It is right that we celebrate the success of and learning from pathfinders and, as I suggested previously, learn from where things have been more challenging. On the resourcing, as I said on Tuesday, this transformation journey is being supported from our £500 million Families First Partnership Programme funding.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, made a couple of specific points. On whether this is doing away with an independent chair, one of the main purposes of multi-agency child protection teams is to have a fresh pair of eyes coming in at the point of the Section 47 inquiry. The new lead child protection practitioner role will work—in fact, is working in pathfinders—in a very similar way to the current independent chairs. I take her point about the need for a fresh view and independence, but that is built into the design of the teams.

On whether this would mean children having more than one social worker, children and families will stay rooted in family help throughout. Multi-agency child protection teams will lead the child protection functions, working with and wrapping support around children, families and the family help lead practitioner. The multi-agency child protection team brings expertise and a fresh focus on significant harm. The lead child protection practitioner will be an experienced social worker but will not be the case lead. In other words, the important ongoing relationship, which I know children feel strongly about, with a person they can understand, work with and gain a relationship with, will remain in place, but additional expertise will be brought to this from the multi-agency child protection team.

On Amendment 37, which would place in the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State to report annually on the team’s impact and activities, I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that it is essential that we understand how multi-agency teams are leading to better outcomes for children and that that learning be shared across the system. That being said, safeguarding partners already have a statutory responsibility to publish annual reports on their multi-agency safeguarding arrangements. This will include reporting on multi-agency child protection teams once the teams come into force. Statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, already sets out the information that should be included in yearly reports, and that will include evidence of impact. Guidance will be updated to include the reporting requirements for these new multi-agency teams. There will be, at the level at which it really matters, a responsibility to account for and report on the nature and success of the multi-agency safeguarding arrangements.

On that basis, and with those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I thank warmly all those who contributed to this short debate, in particular my noble friend Lady O’Neill for her practical examples of how it works on the ground and the very reasonable concerns she and colleagues have about these reforms. If I am honest, I was worried when I listened to the Minister about the amount of confirmation bias in her remarks that this will work exactly as we all wish. If that turns out to be the case, I will be the first to admit that I am wrong, but most big, complicated reforms such as this do not go exactly as planned: some things go well, and others do not. I hope the Government will keep an open mind on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Longfield (Lab)]

Yes—I apologise for that on many levels. We have to move forward at pace, but also with confidence and determination, while also checking along the way that we are giving support where it is needed.

Finally, we need to ensure that investment is there, but we have to get to the point where we are investing money to prevent rather than to just pay the costly bills when things have got to acute status.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We are now on group three on multi-agency child protection teams. As I have already said, these teams seek to address the problems we repeatedly see when children are seriously harmed or killed, including poor information sharing, weak decision-making based on single-service perspectives, and inexperienced social workers without the support, knowledge and experience needed to make tough decisions and ensure children and families get the support they need.

One of the areas in which these teams are already being delivered is Warwickshire. Perhaps at this point, before I talk about Warwickshire, I could also respond to the point made in the previous group by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about the pathfinders. Actually, two of the pathfinders are not “good” or “outstanding”; they are, in fact, “requires improvement”, so that was wrong.

Teams in Warwickshire have reported, to the department, the lowest number of children on child protection plans since July 2023. This reduction is attributed to a more efficient and targeted approach by the multi-agency team, ensuring that the right children are getting the right intervention at the right time—and, crucially, as early as possible in the system. My noble friend Lady Longfield made a very important point about the nature of the objectives of this reform, which are encompassed in this Bill and in the policy paper that I referenced earlier. The objective is to shift support for children much earlier in the process and, where necessary, for a Section 47 child protection intervention to be carried out by the most experienced and senior social workers, who should be supported by a team that brings together the whole range of agencies that may well have information about the child.

With this in mind, I turn to Amendment 33, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, which seeks to allow discretion about the qualifications of persons nominated to teams and seeks clarity on the qualifications prescribed through regulations. Setting out clear requirements for the skills, knowledge and qualifications of multi-agency child protection team members ensures a consistent national standard and consistent expectations for the practitioners making decisions that protect our most vulnerable children. These children deserve this level of consistency and qualification—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey.

As I have said, we know from national reviews that those on the front line of complex child protection do not always have the support and experience they need. We are determined to change that through the regulations that will accompany this legislation. The point about regulations is important, and I will come back to it again when responding to the clause stand part debate. As parliamentarians, we all know that, while it is important that primary legislation sets out the intent, design and most important elements of legislative change, operational detail is best suited to regulations, where there is more flexibility to accommodate developments in sector standards—for example, if new evidence emerges, this good practice can be reflected in the regulations. We are working with other government departments and will publicly consult on these regulations before bringing them before Parliament for scrutiny.

I turn to the clause stand part debate that seeks to remove Clause 3, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has given notice. Annie Hudson chaired the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel, and one of its recommendations led to the development of this legislation. There has been an important discussion about the need to enable sufficient time for appropriate implementation. However, when you have very clear recommendations—as we have here, which I will demonstrate shortly—it is incumbent on Governments to take action on the basis of that. We must ensure that the implementation is right, but we must also, as this Government have done, set out the ambition for the reform necessary in children’s social care to achieve both the strategic change that my noble friend discussed and to overcome some of the shortcomings that we have—sadly—seen evidenced in recent cases. That is what this legislation aims to do.

Annie Hudson said:

“In my time as chair of the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel I have seen reviews about several thousands of serious incidents where children have died or been seriously harmed as a result of abuse and neglect. It is the learning from those incidents, and most particularly the repeated lack of join up between agencies, that led to the Panel’s recommendation in our report Child Protection in England about the tragic deaths of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson to introduce multi-agency child protection teams. High quality social work is critical to effective child protection, but we must also draw on the expertise of practitioners from across different professions and agencies (including police, health and education) to meet the complex safeguarding needs of some children and families. The need for multi-agency child protection teams was also clearly evidenced in our recent national review about child sexual abuse in the family environment. This review found that, once concerns had been raised, too often there was a lack of thorough child protection investigation and effective action to protect and help children. This was in part due to ‘silo’ working across agencies, and inadequate multi-agency exploration and sharing of concerns that children may be at risk”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Can I just clarify a few points that the noble Baroness made in her remarks? She gave the example of Warwickshire reducing the number of children on child protection plans, but of course the number of children on child protection plans nationally fell last year by 1.7% and has fallen by 3.1% since 2020, and that is despite the increase in unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Clearly, we welcome the progress in Warwickshire and anywhere in the country that is achieving that, but I think the impression that she gave was that this was an unusual occurrence, and it is just important to acknowledge that that is a national trend.

Secondly, the regulations the Minister refers to are obviously extremely important in terms of implementation. I can remember other Governments publishing draft regulations during the passage of a Bill so that the House had clarity on their intentions. I wonder whether she would be very kind and take that back to the department and see if that is an option in this and potentially other areas of the Bill.

I am not sure whether I followed the Minister’s comments about the duplication of caseworkers, but page 13 of the department’s guidance appears to suggest that, in Section 47 cases, both the family help lead practitioner and the lead child protection practitioner will be involved. I am sorry to be picky about the money, and of course she is right on the £500 million, but, again, her department’s own documentation states that £253.5 million of that is mainstreamed funding originally for the Supporting Families programme. Again, this is just to be clear about what is new money and what it is for.

Finally, I wonder whether the Minister might pick up on my noble friend Lady Berridge’s suggestion about a meeting. She talked about the general engagement the department rightly has, but can she comment on whether she feels able to accept that invitation?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said that she did not want to undermine the good work happening in Warwickshire by pointing out a general downturn in the number of child protection plans. Good, because, as I suggested earlier, we should celebrate where there has been good work, which in Warwickshire they certainly attributed to the changes they had made.

On the point about draft regulations, there is a tension here, because on the one hand people are asking us to continue to engage on the detail of how this is going to be implemented, yet also to have the regulations alongside the Bill. I will reflect on this and come back to her. On the point about duplication, I have explained it twice, but, clearly, I have not explained it well enough. So I will undertake to write to noble Lords about the operational details, and particularly the role of the family help lead practitioner and the lead practitioner for child protection, and the operational detail that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, was talking about.

On the point about new money, I think I have been pretty clear about what is new money; I said it explicitly. On the meeting, my point was that there will be a whole range of meetings and engagement; I did not say I would not have a meeting. My honourable friend the Minister with responsibility for children’s social care has met many practitioners, experts and DCSs as this process has gone on. I suspect that, between us, we will be able to continue meeting people in the way suggested.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I am grateful for that clarification. Let me assure the Minister on what this concern is born out of, as I hope I explained. We can all pick off one or two experts in a group of people, but there are sector bodies such as the British Association of Social Workers and the Association of Directors of Children’s Services. I mentioned a particular individual because there was particular engagement in the independent review we are all relying on. I assure the Minister that if she comes back at Report with support from those organisations, saying, “We support this; we understand; we have engaged”, these problems will fall away. She has a busy diary—obviously, I do not want to suggest how she allocates her diary—but if she comes back with the support of those representative practitioner bodies, with that assurance, the concerns will melt away.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am not sure that picking off experts is the way the department has engaged in consultation or engagement so far, nor will it do in the future. I am realistic: over my time in both Houses, this is probably my 12th Bill, and frankly, I have never done a Bill about which absolutely everybody was content. I am not going to accept that the only way we can progress this legislation is if every single expert, representative and professional body supports it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I think there is a misunderstanding about my noble friend Lord Agnew’s remarks. My understanding is that he said that schools have got very good at safeguarding, but there are new responsibilities on schools in this Bill and he asked whether additional training would be required and where the resource would be, rather than saying, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, seemed to infer, that this was a new thing. My noble friend knows extremely well that it is not a new thing.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

In previous groups, I have spoken at some length about the purpose and functions of these new multi-agency child protection teams and how they will be delivered as part of the existing joint and equal duty on safeguarding partners to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children in their area.

On Amendment 34, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, for his contribution on ensuring that teachers and teaching assistants have the right training to work effectively in child protection. Statutory guidance is clear that teaching staff should receive safeguarding training at induction and at least annually thereafter. My noble friend Lady Bousted was very clear about that position. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, was also very passionate about the need for schools to be involved in this issue, which is precisely why on Tuesday we debated the clause about education and childcare settings being key safeguarding partners, and the improved emphasis on that in this legislation.

However, despite having this assurance, I decided in the spirit of the previous discussion that we were having that I would consult an expert about whether this is in fact the case. I consulted a teacher very close to me about the sort of training that he is receiving. He told me, “Every year, we receive statutory update training at the beginning of the year. This can take most of one of our inset days and requires us to read the updates for KCSIE”—Keeping Children Safe in Education—“guidance. Then we get update training through the year, every couple of weeks in briefing, and then about once a half-term in an after-school CPD”. He is an excellent teacher, although as his mother I am completely biased, and he is in a very good school. I think this makes the point about the current position in terms of training for teachers and teaching assistants.

There is a reasonable point to be made about the education partners. Although they already have a responsibility for safeguarding, they will now also have a more explicit role in the multi-agency child protection teams. I hope I can reassure noble Lords by saying that the statutory guidance is also clear that the statutory safeguarding partners, which include the other partners that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, referred to, should support practitioners that work with children, including through creating a learning culture where practitioners stay up to date on best practice. We are clear and confident that the education practitioner in the multi-agency child protection teams will be able to operate as a crucial link to and from education and childcare settings, ensuring that school staff are supported to work effectively with vulnerable children and the child protection teams.

The pathfinder areas have developed multi-agency workforce development plans and delivered comprehensive multi-agency training that has provided opportunities not just to ensure that practitioners have the knowledge and skills they need to deliver effective child protection but to align on shared values and build these vital cross-agency relationships. Training typically covers the reforms, safeguarding responsibilities, local practice frameworks and how different roles fit together across the system. There is both an opportunity within schools and an improved opportunity, from the role of the education practitioner in the multi-agency child protection teams, to ensure that that expertise is there.

I turn now to Amendment 38, which relates to sufficient resource and delegated functions. I spoke on this in the previous group. In fact, we have, understandably, talked about it in several groups so far in Committee. I will briefly revisit the key points. The new teams will be delivered as part of the existing joint and equal duty on safeguarding partners. I have previously mentioned the flexibility in the new measures, which enables teams to operate along police and health footprints, balanced with a sharp focus on multi-agency child protection delivery, where agencies are clear about their responsibilities and accountabilities. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, answered her own question. Of course it would not be the case that you would have the same number of multi-agency child protection teams in an authority such as Birmingham as you would have in Rutland; that would not be logical.

I am not sure that I would characterise this system as simply adding another child protection team alongside the current ones, as I think the noble Baroness said. As I said in my explanations on the previous group in particular, the intention is very much that these teams will be the place where agencies will be able to work together in the consideration of child protection cases and issues. They are quite distinct from the child protection teams that might currently exist.

In terms of resources, safeguarding partners already agree and dedicate resources as part of their local multi-agency safeguarding arrangements, and the Government have provided £500 million to support the rollout of the Families First Partnership Programme, of which multi-agency child protection teams are a part, as I said previously.

I do not want to be churlish about this, but I am not sure I would have rolled up to this Committee at this point to focus particularly on how difficult school and local government funding is if I had spent the last 14 years supporting the last Government. Nevertheless, it is an important point that we ensure that there is sufficient funding, which is why this Government have already increased, in real terms, funding going to both schools and local government.

On the group before last, we responded to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, about the consequences and the process of local government reorganisation. I think I gave some reassurance on that, provided to me by my noble friend Lady Taylor.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

It was great to hear about the training that the Minister’s son gets—that is fantastic. Can we therefore take it that these new duties in the Bill will involve no additional training, and that everything is covered by the training that she eloquently set out? Alternatively, will there be additional costs or training implications? It would be interesting to know that. Obviously, there is an array, as she rightly pointed out, but does she foresee that there will be any additional requirements?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Good training is already provided for teachers and teaching assistants, but my point was that the role of the education lead practitioner would both enable and need more training to be provided. I used the example of one of the pathfinders where that training had taken place. I suspect that, with those pathfinders, it would be appropriate if some of the additional money that had been made available contributed to that. I also made the point that it is already the case that statutory partners in safeguarding are providing resources for their safeguarding responsibilities. The point about multi-agency child protection teams is that they will enable that resource to be spent more effectively at the point when it will impact on children’s lives.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

I add to the Minister’s son’s view that a lot of this training is already being done. As a working teacher, I note that we do inset days and online and offline CPD. As far as I remember, it is still a requirement of Ofsted that every teacher, when questioned, should have a working knowledge of Keeping Children Safe in Education. A plea that has oft been made to me is to ask the Minister—I have asked previous Ministers too—whether, when Keeping Children Safe in Education is updated, that could be done before the beginning of September, so that inset days can be planned with the new guidance rather than the old.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am glad that the noble Lord reinforced my point—I think I am in big trouble with my son for having outed him in this debate. I am glad to hear that other excellent teachers have experienced this training. The noble Lord makes a very fair point. I will certainly go back to my colleagues in the department and say that, in reality, if we want people to be trained and updated on Keeping Children Safe in Education guidance, and if we expect that to happen at an inset day at the start of a school year, it would be a good idea if the guidance was there in time for them to be able to do that. That is a fair request.

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her answers. I reassure her that I was not trying to suggest that this is a whole new scale of undertaking for teachers. My noble friend Lady Barran was right: I was trying to understand the scale of it, because this is a big and complex Bill. The Minister was helpful in saying that her son, who is dealing with this on the front line, feels that one inset day will be sufficient for the kind of familiarisation that will be needed. I am not trying to put words in her mouth. I am trying to say that, in my experience, a Bill of this complexity will need quite a lot of CPD for our teaching cohort—that is where I am coming from.

We have a specific amount of time available, because of the 1,265 rule, which, again, we will work to. Every hour that is taken away from what teachers are doing at the moment is one that has to be filled. I take absolutely at face value what the Minister has said, and I am encouraged that she has in her immediate life someone who can give her front-line experience. I genuinely mean that, because that is where I am coming from. I tabled this amendment because head teachers in my academy trust had asked me to clarify the situation. It was put forward with the best of intentions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, since the very first inquiry into the tragic death of Dennis O’Neill in 1945, we have seen time and again that poor information sharing lies at the heart of serious child safeguarding failures. It is a persistent and deeply troubling issue, and if we are serious about protecting children, we must be serious about fixing this. I think there has been in this group of amendments with respect to this clause a pretty strong consensus around this House on that point.

The introduction of an information-sharing duty in Clause 4 marks a step forward in that mission, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, identified why, despite there being some progress, there is nevertheless still a need for the clarity and the permission provided by the duty in the Bill. In speaking to the amendments, I recognise that they raise important questions about how we will make this legislation work in practice. I will attempt to respond to as many as possible, and where I do not, I will try to ensure that I provide that information later.

Amendment 41 challenges the clarity and effectiveness of the duty to share information as set out in new Section 16LA. Let me be clear: as I have suggested, the new information-sharing duty is a significant development. It places a legal obligation on relevant organisations to share information to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. These organisations are already bound by a statutory duty to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children when exercising their functions.

I think it might be at this point that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, asked who was captured in new Section 16LA(4)(c) of the information-sharing duty. New paragraph (c) relates to those relevant people undertaking functions on behalf of those organisations with Section 11 duties—so, for example, GPs who work on behalf of NHSE and other individuals relating to those organisations with Section 11 duties. It responds directly to feedback in the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, which found that, despite legislation permitting information sharing for safeguarding, practitioners often see it as a barrier due to confusing organisational agreements and arrangements.

In developing this duty, officials have worked closely with the Information Commissioner’s Office, practitioners and other government departments to draft the measure. The duty is not about increasing the number of referrals to children’s social care—in fact, precisely the opposite, we could argue. It is about enabling practitioners to share and request information so that they can understand what life is truly like for a child and the significance of the information they hold. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, gave a good example of a whole range of different sets of information coming together to create a very different and worrying story about a child. I would also argue that it is probably a good example of a multi-agency child protection team being able to bring all that information together to decide on the action needed, but it exemplified how we can get a much clearer picture if we promote information sharing, which is what this duty is all about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendments 44, 47 and 48 all relate to the recording of information-sharing decisions, and they cover the two obvious situations: one where information is shared and one where it is not shared because the relevant person considers that sharing it would be more detrimental to the child than not sharing it. These amendments seek to clarify what the expectations are on all agencies, from the smallest childminder to the largest college, in terms of recording their decisions and the reasons for those decisions.

Keeping good records is obviously essential but it takes time and requires secure storage and access rights. Good record-keeping can improve safeguarding situations; for example, where there are changes of staff or somebody is on holiday and a new or temporary member of staff may not know the history of the case. Similarly, an agency may decide not to share information at one point and then decide at a subsequent point that it is in the best interests of the child’s safety and welfare to do so.

I would like to press the Minister on cases where the decision is made not to share information because of the fear that it would be detrimental to the child’s safety. As discussed earlier, we do not know what we do not know. So one piece of information might not seem overly worrying but, when pieced together with others, as we have discussed, the picture changes. Also, we need confidence that practitioners are considering these decisions with care. No one expects perfection in these areas but, rather, defensible not defensive decision-making.

Will the Minister comment in this regard on subsections (5) and (6), which I assume will be clarified in regulations? Having a clear decision-making process, to record as simply as possible the decision taken and the reasons for it, will improve the quality of decision-making. In a serious case incident, by which I mean when a child is killed or seriously harmed, it will be vital, so I ask again: how is this going to work in practice? I can see that, if you are a strong local authority, a strong trust or a large college, this might be close to business as usual, but what about the single small primary school head who has to deal with this, along with 55 other responsibilities, or the nursery or the childminder? I look forward to the Minister’s remarks. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments in group six, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Amendments 44, 47 and 48 seek to require practitioners to keep records of decisions made when processing information under the new information-sharing duty. I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that documenting such decisions is important for the reasons that she outlined. This principle is already embedded in the non-statutory guidance Information Sharing: Guidance for Practitioners and Managers, as well as in the Information Commissioner’s Office’s A 10 Step Guide to Sharing Information to Safeguard Children, both of which promote clear and proportionate record keeping.

In relation to the points that the noble Baroness made about smaller organisations having to carry this out, I shall read an extract from the non-statutory guidance that I think is helpful. It includes the advice:

“Record the reasons for your information sharing decision, irrespective of whether or not you decide to share information. When another practitioner or organisation requests information from you, and you decide not to share it, be prepared to explain why you chose not to do so. Be willing to reconsider your decision if the requestor shares new information that might cause you to regard information you hold in a new light. When recording any decision, clearly set out the rationale and be prepared to explain your reasons if you are asked”.


Furthermore, data protection legislation includes key principles such as lawfulness, transparency and, crucially, accountability, which require organisations to demonstrate compliance with data protection obligations.

Our plan is, as the noble Baroness surmised, to introduce statutory guidance covering matters such as appropriate record keeping. Agencies must have regard to the guidance in discharging the duty, which further strengthens the position of recording decisions. We think this strikes the right balance by ensuring that audit trails are in place, as she outlined, without placing unnecessary administrative burdens on practitioners who are already, as she said, working under significant pressure. I hope that has reassured the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Could the Minister perhaps show us an example of the kind of guidance that is already given to a childminder or a small primary school? Presumably that is going to be enhanced—I think she said that earlier. Are there, say, 30 questions? Is it just a small form? Is there an online option? Generation Z, of course, is increasingly keen to report online.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I did read an extract from the non-statutory guidance that already exists, Information Sharing: Advice for Practitioners Providing Safeguarding Services for Children, Young People, Parents and Carers. As I also said, there is the Information Commissioner’s Office’s A 10 Step Guide to Sharing Information to Safeguard Children. I am sure they are 10 straightforward steps.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Only 10 steps. I am reassured that the Minister has considered this carefully. I think my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe is right to probe gently in relation to the smallest organisations, where familiarity with this degree of responsibility may be less great and it could cause some anxiety. So, in addition to the guidance, there might need to be some support for those organisations—but I am sure the Minister will consider that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting and thought-provoking debate on an important topic: namely, how we use a unique identifier in the interests of safeguarding our children. Noble Lords have quite rightly raised some crucial questions for the Minister to answer, particularly relating to privacy and aiming to clarify His Majesty’s Government’s purpose in this clause.

We hope that the Minister will be able to shed further light on both the specific and broader issues. I believe Amendment 56, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, and Amendment 63, in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer, are both important as they seek to outline what should be in future regulations. We are interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on these, and seek to clarify if the Government would consider publishing draft regulations during the passage of the Bill.

Similarly, Amendment 62 in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer highlights the crucial issue of accurate and secure data collection, as well as the recording and storage of that data. I appreciate that technology has moved on, but many noble Lords will remember the child benefit data loss in 2007, the cyberattack and theft of data from the Legal Aid Agency only last week and the current disruptions from a cyberattack that one of our major high street retailers is facing. This is a real and present danger, which is only going to increase. The loose nature of the clause creates veritable and justifiable concerns.

On more specific issues, we are particularly interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on Amendment 54 in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer. Can she please give the Committee an example of a similar set of identifiers that is of general application? We also look forward to the Minister’s response to Amendment 59, in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran, which would, if accepted, allow this project to move forward on a much lower risk and much more affordable basis.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in group 7, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Farmer and Lord Lucas, and ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Cash. There has been consensus, once again, on a consistent identifier for children, also referred to as a single unique identifier, which has long been recognised as a powerful tool to improve information sharing across agencies. It featured prominently in both the Children’s Commissioner’s Family Review and theIndependent Review of Children’s Social Care, which described its potential to

“ensure that data can be easily, quickly and accurately linked”.

The reality is that, without a consistent identifier, professionals are forced to rely on a patchwork of variable data—names, dates of birth, addresses—all of which can change, be misspelled or be incomplete, as has been pointed out. This not only slows down the process but increases the risk of mismatches and missed opportunities to intervene early.

If we are serious about improving multi-agency working and safeguarding outcomes, then we must be equally serious about the infrastructure that underpins it. A consistent identifier is not a silver bullet, but it is a foundational step towards more integrated, responsive and effective support for children and families.

I recognise the spirit in which the amendments have been proposed and I will answer almost all the questions—in fact, I will be more ambitious and say that I will answer all the questions in my response.

Amendment 50 provides an opportunity for a broader —and welcome—discussion of the consistent identifier. This amendment, however, seeks to remove the provision for a consistent identifier for children, despite it being a clear manifesto commitment. I understand why that is the case.

I say in response to that probing amendment that we have deliberately made provision for the specification of a consistent identifier through regulations, rather than in the Bill. This allows us the necessary flexibility to pilot the use of the NHS number, for example, and to address the wide barriers to effective information sharing. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that we recognise in the piloting the need to ensure that this can be implemented for all organisations, including some of the small organisations that she identified, and we will test this through the piloting. Let me be clear: we will proceed only when we are confident of the benefits, costs, security, and governance of such a system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thought I was doing quite well, but I am afraid that I do not have the answer to that. If it is possible to find it out, I will let the noble Baroness know.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister profusely for the detailed response and thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. It has been a very helpful, probing debate and an opportunity for expression by so many experts of their concerns in this respect.

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining in such detail the consideration already given to these matters, particularly by reference to the conversations that have been taking place with medical professionals and the Information Commissioner. That is extremely reassuring to know, and we hope that that will continue and will be helpful.

The Government have an unenviable but laudable task ahead to implement this. I am sure I share the view of many of my noble friends in wishing them extremely strong success in achieving it, in the interests of all children and to safeguard against all future possible tragedies. The Minister will be grateful to know that I have nothing further to add, and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 50.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I was not going to intervene but, after hearing my noble friend, I cannot help but recall having to deal with some of the children of a man who, on inquiry, had had 11 sons by 11 different women. Because he was the sort of man he was, he insisted that each of them had his name.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Speaking as a Smith, I can say that those of us with very popular names recognise the point made by both the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston —although obviously not in quite the same way.

Before starting, I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that there are no publicly available figures specifically detailing how many incorrect NHS numbers are issued annually. If there were, obviously I would have them at my fingertips. The Personal Demographics Service is responsible for managing and correcting NHS number issues, including duplicates, misassignments and demographic errors, but those numbers are not publicly available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

As the Minister was speaking, I was thinking that the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has been campaigning for this for a very long time. I hope that she will be able to confirm that her officials would have involved the royal college in any discussions over any difficulties and doubts, because I think it would want to be very helpful. It represents, of course, the group of doctors who end up seeing some of the most severely damaged children.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am pretty certain that officials will have already consulted with the royal college, but, if they have not, I give the noble Baroness an undertaking that they will.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I again thank the Minister for her reply. I am not sure I heard exactly whether there will be more than one pilot or quite what the timeline was, but, at this hour on a Thursday evening, I will not press her on that. I trust her to update the House when she is able to say more.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her intervention. It is a reminder that we are so fortunate to be surrounded by such experts, and such patient and persistent ones—in a good way. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, having listened to what has been said about Amendment 61, I say briefly that it is very sensible, providing that the data can be kept safe. That is the caveat. If the Minister could address that point, that would inform the Committee as to where we can go with this.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I hope I can provide some reassurance to noble Lords about this. Amendment 61 seeks to ensure that the consistent identifier could be used for research purposes. I understand the concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton—and I commend him for his persistence in sitting this long to move his amendment—that the provision may appear to limit the use of the consistent identifier for research, which many stakeholders, and many noble Lords today, have rightly highlighted as a potential benefit. However, to be clear, these measures make provision for the Secretary of State to specify which agencies must use the consistent identifier and in what circumstances. Importantly, this does not prevent a consistent identifier being used for research purposes, provided that any such use is authorised in accordance with data protection and other relevant legislation.

We recognise the role of data in improving outcomes for babies, children and young people. As I say, this legislation is about when the consistent identifier must be used, rather than when it can be used, as regulations will mandate the number and the organisations required to use it. The consistent identifier could be used for research purposes, if this is authorised in accordance with UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act. We are aware of concerns around this, and officials are discussing this with key organisations. I hope that provides some assurance about the possibility of using the consistent identifier.

We have, in this legislation, deliberately prioritised use of the consistent identifier to facilitate the exercise of safeguarding and welfare functions directly. That is the basis on which we are testing its implementation and benefits through our pilot programme. If additional benefits, such as those for research, are realised, we will be in a strong position to explore how this could be facilitated. For the reasons I have outlined, and with some of the reassurance that I have provided, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment, having achieved his objective.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

I thank everybody who took part in that debate and say how optimistic the Minister’s answer has made me. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh for her intervention and I very much look forward to discussing this further.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

That last intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, was very interesting and useful in helping us through this amendment. There is absolute agreement about the need for contact centres, given the very important work that all noble Lords recognise they have done, also to be able to safeguard in the sorts of circumstances that she outlined. The question is whether that is most appropriately done through the provisions in this amendment, which would require all child contact centres to be nationally accredited and regulated by the Secretary of State and all staff to undertake specific training on safeguarding and domestic abuse. I hope I can provide some reassurance and outline why it is not necessary in this case for the Secretary of State to undertake the regulation and accreditation in the way that the amendment—if not the way it has been introduced—suggests.

We recognise the enormous importance of child contact centres in enabling children to spend time with a non-resident parent in a safe environment and the important work of the National Association of Child Contact Centres, which accredits centres across England and Wales and ensures high standards among its members via its national standards, which cover points such as risk assessments, safeguarding and hearing the voices of children. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, identified, Research into Safeguarding Processes in Child Contact Centres in England, commissioned by the Ministry of Justice and completed in 2023, identified limited evidence of unaccredited centres. In other words, most centres are accredited by the National Association of Child Contact Centres.

Here we come to the crux of whether there are ways of ensuring that children can be safeguarded in those circumstances. Since the 2023 review and report on child contact centres, which some noble Lords have referenced, the Ministry of Justice has worked with the National Association of Child Contact Centres to consider where action can be taken. The national association has now introduced a mandatory coercive control training course for its members and has reviewed and updated its national standards to take account of the findings of the report. It has also revised materials such as its risk assessment template. Additionally, the Ministry of Justice has established a child contact centre forum with representatives from across the family justice system to discuss the issues facing the sector and its role within the system.

In addition, as we have heard, in private law cases judicial protocol guidance, endorsed by the President of the Family Division, encourages judges and magistrates to refer families to NACCC-accredited centres only. This limits the extent to which unaccredited centres are used. We are becoming increasingly confident that NACCC accreditation delivers the protections that people rightly want to see and that there are very few unaccredited centres.

This amendment, however, would mean that there could never be any unaccredited centres. It is worth saying that there are limited circumstances in which unaccredited centres might be used. This could include, for example, unaccredited centres for specific and short-term purposes because of the individual circumstances of the case. One example might be when a child has a foster care placement some distance away from the nearest accredited contact centre; rather than requiring the child to travel a significant distance to undertake contact, the local authority might assess it to be in the child’s best interest to remain at a location closer to their home. However, in doing that—when considering child contact with parents and children—the local authority must ensure consistency with safeguarding and promoting the child’s welfare.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

On Amendment 107B, I am grateful to the noble Lord opposite because I confess that I did not completely understand it as given on the Marshalled List. He is right that we must set high expectations for local authorities and have consistency on the legal rights of children in care.

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

My Lords, this group of amendments has enabled us to hear a consensus in this House about the enormously difficult, tragic and appalling instances of child sexual abuse over the years, and that it is no longer good enough for us not to take important action to protect children in the most appalling circumstances. That is why this Government are committed to protecting children from harm, including from the horrors of sexual abuse, trafficking and exploitation. Measures included in the Bill and the significant programme of reforms already under way will help to protect children at risk of abuse and stop vulnerable children falling through the cracks in services.

I shall speak to the detail of the amendments. As we have heard, Amendment 66, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, seeks to insert into the Children Act 2004 a mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse. I wholly understand why noble Lords have taken the opportunity today to raise this issue. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, we should take every opportunity to raise it and to emphasise the determination of this House and indeed this Government to take action. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, about the specific issues relating to sport. We have also heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Bichard, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, about their experience and the pressure they have rightly put on the Government to make progress.

Noble Lords knew that part of my response would be that the Government are already taking forward a new mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse for individuals in England undertaking regulated activity with children, as well as, crucially, a new criminal offence of obstructing an individual from making a report under that duty. This duty is included in the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently in the other place.

That is the most appropriate route to debate the detail of a mandatory reporting duty, but I have no doubt that colleagues in the other place—and those of my noble friends who will be responsible for taking that Bill through this House—will have listened carefully to the specific points and challenges raised by noble Lords during the course of the debate on this group, and on Amendment 66 in particular. I will draw this debate to their attention because, while we might disagree over the details, we can agree that any new duty must ensure that the words of children who are seeking help are heard and apply the strongest possible measures to anyone who seeks to cover up abuse of this kind.

I will respond to a couple of points on the mandatory duty. On criminal sanctions, there may well be differences, partly because of the sensitive and careful balance here, which the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, identified. The Government have not attached criminal sanctions in the Crime and Policing Bill to a failure to report. However, there will be criminal sanctions for anyone who obstructs an individual from making a report under that duty. This is because millions of people in England take part in regulated activity with children and young people. Many of them will be teachers, nurses, social workers and other qualified professionals, but a significant proportion will be volunteers giving up their time to support, for example, their child’s sports team.

Those volunteers are the lifeblood of many opportunities on offer to our young people. They should comply with the duty, but we do not think it would be proportionate to create a criminal sanction for failure to comply with it. That could create a chilling effect where people are reluctant to volunteer or even enter the professions, because they fear being criminalised for making a mistake. I know that this is a delicate and difficult area and I am sure that it will be subject to further debate when the Crime and Policing Bill comes to this House.

The purpose of mandatory reporting has to be to improve the protection of children. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, emphasised, the aim is to create a culture of support, knowledge and openness when dealing with child sexual abuse. In working through the details of how this mandatory duty works, we must be careful that we do not do the opposite to that. Mandatory reporting will create a culture of openness and honesty, empower professionals and volunteers to take prompt, decisive action to report sexual abuse and demonstrate to children and young people that, if they come forward, they will be heard.

Amendment 69A was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Given the amount of work we have to get through on the Bill, I thank him for his brief but effective introduction to his amendments. I recognise the importance of safeguarding children from the risk posed by parents who have been convicted of serious offences, including those involving domestic abuse, child abuse and child sexual abuse. Ensuring their safety and well-being must remain at the heart of our family justice system. This amendment seeks to allow the High Court to curtail or remove parental contact where a parent has been convicted of domestic abuse, child abuse or child sexual abuse. It would also require the High Court to publish annual statistics on how many times they have removed or curtailed rights to parental contact.

However, we do not believe that new legislative provision is required, because existing legislation already serves to protect children from the harms associated with abusive parents. This is undoubtedly an issue where the courts should consider enormously carefully the potential damage that could happen to a child through contact with people in the sorts of circumstances that this amendment references. Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 already states that the child’s welfare must be the court’s “paramount consideration” when making a decision relating to a child’s upbringing. That section already includes a list of factors, known as the “welfare checklist”, which the court must take into account when deciding whether to make a child arrangements order for a child to spend time with or otherwise have contact with a person. This already includes considering the likely effect of any change of circumstances on the child and any harm that the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering. It follows that, when determining whether parental contact with a child is appropriate, legislation already gives the court the powers set out in the first subsection of this amendment. The court must already consider any potential risk or harm to the child, and this of course includes the very serious risks associated with domestic abuse, child abuse and sexual abuse.

The noble Lord’s amendment would also require the High Court to publish data on the number of times parental contact is curtailed or removed. Although I understand the call for accountability, it would not in fact be possible for the Ministry of Justice to collate this information without consulting each individual judgment. Of course, many of these judgments will be made in the family court, and therefore it would be very difficult to go through each individual judgment in order to collate the information that the amendment asks for. This is not to undermine the significance of the point being made by the amendment, but I hope that the noble Lord will see that there is already, within the law and in fact within the practice of the courts, the ability to ensure that this protection is available for children.

Amendment 107B was tabled by my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie. It seeks to enable courts to prohibit or enforce specific local authority action where children in local authority care are experiencing or at risk of significant harm. I wholly share my noble friend’s objective here; we recognise the necessity for children and young people to be protected from harm, to have their voices heard and to challenge aspects of their care, especially when they have concerns about their safety. But of course, if a child is at risk of harm, they need swift and responsive action from the professionals around them, not a court process to navigate. The system of children’s social care is purposefully designed to protect and safeguard children, and there are numerous existing mechanisms through which any concerns can be escalated.

That does not mean that there is no room for improvement here, as I will outline. But, for example, there are many professionals who surround children in care, each with a specific duty to promote the child’s best interests. They include social workers, independent reviewing officers and advocates. In children’s homes, they are required to report serious incidents and abuse allegations to Ofsted, which will investigate and, where necessary, has powers to take appropriate action. There are also legal routes to challenge local authority actions where there are serious concerns about misconduct. We are, of course, aware of cases in which children have been harmed while in care, which is completely unacceptable. We know that strong, trusted relationships surrounding the child are key to keeping children safe, which is why we are already taking further action, as I say.

First, we are improving advocacy for children in care by publishing new national standards and statutory guidance for advocacy later this year. Secondly, we are introducing new post-qualifying standards for social workers that clearly set out the need to be agile and timely in adapting plans and intervening to keep children safe. We are creating a new local authority designated officer—LADO—handbook to improve consistency and information sharing across local authority boundaries. We are improving qualifications, standards and access to training for staff in children’s homes to ensure that children are receiving the high quality of care they need. We are in dialogue with the sector, including children and young people, to consider how effectively professionals around the child work seamlessly together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the points that she has made. She referenced the update that came out in April, but that does not go far enough to meet recommendation 6 of IICSA, which talks about access to courts. It seems to me that there is an inconsistency between that and what the Home Secretary said in January about implementing all 20 recommendations, if the update is—if I understand my noble friend correctly—as far as the Government are prepared to go in this aspect of it at this stage.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

In relation to recommendation 6, in very big consultation with the sector, the objective of the Government is to deliver on the intention of the recommendation while recognising—this is something that professionals have also raised—that, for the reasons I have outlined, a new legal route here not only is not necessary but would risk making children’s ability to have their voice heard and for the professionals around them to support them less likely to happen. It is the Government’s view that this is a more effective way of delivering the intentions behind recommendation 6.

Between existing safeguarding mechanisms and planned improvements, this Government set a clear expectation that children are safe, their voices are heard and professionals work together to take immediate action in response to issues or concerns. I thank noble Lords for the range of issues that have been raised on this group of amendments. I hope that I have been able to provide some assurances and that noble Lords will feel content not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I am not sure that I entirely agree with the noble Baroness on the spirit of the law. It talks about “trifling”—where the chastisement is of a trivial nature—and, while different parents might interpret that in a different way, the kinds of abuse that were cited in the debate that we have just listened to were not trifling; there was no question that they were trifling.

I will turn now to Amendment 173 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, which seeks to introduce a national strategy to address neglect of children. As we heard the noble Baroness explain—from her own professional experience, she brings great expertise on this matter—neglect is too common a feature in too many children’s lives. I commend her for bringing this to the attention of the Committee, and I would support her assertion that many practitioners lack confidence in how to respond to neglect. The approach set out in the amendment is practical in terms of sharing best practice and supporting both professionals and parents to understand and address neglect. My question to the noble Baroness, and potentially to the Minister, is whether it is wise to try to separate neglect from abuse, since we know that in most cases they will coexist, and therefore I imagine one would want practitioners to go in with their eyes open to both.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government are putting children at the heart of everything we do. This is evident in the far-reaching child protection and safeguarding measures in the Bill.

The amendments in this group were tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Tyler. They relate to the defence of reasonable punishment and what the Government are doing about neglect.

I will speak first to Amendments 67 and 505, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on removing the defence of reasonable punishment in legislation, which has been the basis of most of the contributions in this group. Let me be completely clear: the Government do not condone violence or abuse of children, and there are laws in place to protect children from this. Violence against children is not only unacceptable but illegal. The Crown Prosecution Service guidance referenced during the course of this debate is very clear that only the mildest form of physical punishment can be used to justify discipline. Child protection agencies and the police treat allegations of abuse very seriously; they will investigate and take appropriate action, including prosecution, where there is evidence of an offence having been committed. Local authorities, police and healthcare professionals have a clear duty to act immediately to protect children if they are concerned that a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, identified terrible cases that we must all take note of. Much of Part 1 of the Bill aims to address precisely these types of cases. But it is important to emphasise that cases where children have been abused or murdered by their parents—children, in fact, who experienced abuse far short of the terrible cases she identified—even in cases where their parents claimed to have been legally disciplining them, would not be covered by the reasonable punishment defence. To suggest otherwise is simply wrong. I am not convinced that it really was simply a reasonable punishment that led to the terrible outcomes in those cases; I think it was something far more profound, dangerous and worthy of attention—in fact, attention would be legally required.

We have heard that other countries have made these changes. We are looking closely at changes in Scotland and Wales and continue to build our evidence base, but we do not want to take this important decision yet. Wales will publish its report at the end of the year, looking at the impact that the change in legislation has had.

It is important that, in making any decisions, we consider all voices, including those of the child, trusted stakeholders and those who might be disproportionately affected by removing the defence. I certainly accept some of the examples used by noble Lords about the support that there is for removing this defence. I do not think it is quite as straightforward and completely categorically clear as some noble Lords have suggested.

Most parents want what is best for their children and they should be supported. It is right that we protect all children who are at risk of harm, but it is also right that we do not intervene in family life when children are safe, loved and well supported. This is why I agree with noble Lords who identified the need to find more positive ways to parent. I do not think that most parents who resorted at some point or another to a smack feel that that is the most positive way they could parent their children.

That is why we are rolling out national reforms to multi-agency family help and child protection—backed, as we have said previously, by over £500 million of funding—and, importantly, providing parenting support in 75 local authorities through family hubs. Parenting is difficult. Any of us who has done it understands the challenges of choosing the right ways to promote the positive development of our children. The recent publication of our practice guide for parenting services for parents of zero to 10 year-olds is a positive way to help parents identify how to do that very difficult job most effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I warmly welcome the Minister’s remarks, because at the heart of this debate there seems to be a mischaracterisation and misunderstanding of Section 58 of the Children Act 2004 and a conflation of mild admonition with assault by beating, which obviously should be subject to the full force of the law. For the avoidance of doubt, and just to sum up, would she agree with the words of her colleague the Minister of State, Catherine McKinnell:

“As the law stands, quite frankly, any suggestion that reasonable punishment could be used as a defence to serious harm to a child, or indeed death, as has been asserted, is completely wrong and frankly absurd”?—[Official Report, Commons, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee, 6/2/25; col. 464.]

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I hope I did make that clear earlier, but I am very happy to reiterate. It would be wholly wrong. It would not be in line with the law for the types of cases that we have heard about in this debate to be subject to the defence of reasonable punishment. The Crown Prosecution Service has been clear, as professionals are clear, that that would get nowhere near to this defence. I know that noble Lords will be disappointed, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, with the response of the Government, but I think it is a reasonable recognition of the very strong action taken when children are subject to violence and the need to learn from those who have recently changed the law. That is a sensible and appropriate way to go forward in this case.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to all those who have who have spoken in support of this amendment. I am slightly disappointed that it leapt straight into the court end of things. I did not recognise being categorised, as was said, as an activist parent. I am not an activist parent, and those who have spoken are not activist parents.

One of the problems—and that is why I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister of Burtersett, Lady Whitaker and Lady Benjamin, who have been with me on this journey for such a long time—is that violence and assault against children happens insidiously. Children learn that this is the way to get control over other people, and it escalates. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, parents lose it. When they have lost it, it is often associated with alcohol, drugs or other stresses in the home. They do not deliberately set out to beat up the child; it just escalates, and it becomes more and more common.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for pointing out the change in the constitution in Germany towards children and to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for his extensive experience with children. I think his experience may mirror mine. When I was doing paediatrics and admitting children, I was told, “Oh no, I just smacked them and they fell over”. When we investigated further, we found multiple fractures: old fractures, new fractures, all kinds of injuries that nobody had noticed before because they thought this had just been a gentle smack. I have yet to find a family who declare that they are wilfully not a loving family, but loads of families declare they are loving families and they clearly are not, and they have many problems.

The emphasis on positive parenting is certainly a theme from this Government. It has been a theme from the Government in Wales. It is terribly important. The last thing that I will say is that I have seen this at first hand with one family where the father certainly smacked his children remarkably often—and when he had had a drink, it was even more often. When he was told by the others in the family, “You can’t do that any more, you’ve got to stop”, his behaviour changed. Interestingly, the children’s behaviour improved dramatically. They went from being quite disturbed and disruptive to being quite well behaved, because of the positive parenting that went with being told why what they were doing was not good rather than just receiving a clout. That is what we are trying to do. The defence is used at the end of the road. For somebody seeing a child who is told “Oh, that was just reasonable punishment”, it is very difficult to unscramble it in the school or the GP surgery as you cannot do a bone scan. You have to take things at face value.

I shall just comment on the issue of skin colour. You do not see bruises nearly as easily in highly pigmented skin. That is just a fact. I advise noble Lords to look at a textbook of dermatology. All these things were written based on white skin, and they have finally woken up to the fact that in pigmented skin all kinds of things look different, and that includes injury and so-called “superficial injury”. So to say that you must not leave a mark does not hold water in a country where we have people from all over and a wonderful richness there.

So for the moment, I will withdraw the amendment, but I am very tempted to come back to it later, because I am not convinced by what I have heard today from the Government, and I feel much more convinced by my home country of Wales and my other home country of Scotland. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 169 and 172 in my name and to comment on the other amendments in this group. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lord Farmer for their support on Amendment 169, and the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Meston, for their support on Amendment 172. As has been noted, they seek to do similar things.

Amendment 169 is a narrower version, focusing on support for mothers who have had a baby removed into care at birth. Like the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I prefer Amendment 172, which is broader and would create an obligation for local authorities to offer an evidence-based programme, such as the Pause programme, to mothers who have had a child removed from their care and who, as we have heard, very often immediately get pregnant again. From a human point of view, one can absolutely understand why, after all the attention that they may have received from children’s services prior to the child being removed and then the deafening silence that surrounds them once the child is gone. Very often, that void is filled by another pregnancy. I prefer Amendment 172 because it is a real issue and is broader, but the evidence for Amendment 169 is crystal clear. Almost half of newborns subject to care proceedings are born to mothers who had previously had a child—an older sibling to the newborn—removed through those proceedings. The near inevitability of that seems very powerful.

I am not sure whether it is on my register of interest, but I did a period of volunteering for Pause before I joined your Lordships’ House, so I have seen the quality of its work first hand. Since 2013, over 2,000 women have completed the Pause programme who, prior to working with Pause, collectively had had more than 6,200 children removed from their care—that is just over three children per woman. This is not a competition for how many children a woman has had removed, but Pause was founded by a social worker, Sophie Humphreys, and a district judge, Nick Crichton, after they worked together on a case where a 14th child was removed from the same woman. It is grounded very much in the experience of women.

I suggest to the Minister that this amendment is similar in spirit to Clause 1, which puts family group decision-making processes on a statutory footing, in the sense that some local authorities offer these programmes and some do not. The delivery is inconsistent and patchy and, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, the funding for it is not always available. Also in the spirit of the Bill, which seeks to support those in the care system, we know that 40% of women who have taken part in the Pause programmes were themselves in care.

The Minister will know that the DfE’s own evaluation of this work saw significantly improved outcomes for mothers, reduced rates of infant care entry and very significant savings to children’s social care, with the department’s evaluation suggesting that every £1 spent on the Pause programme resulted in a saving to children’s social care of £4.50 over four years and £7.61—that seems remarkably accurate—over 18 years. I am not sure whether that is the net present value of £7.61, but anyway—that is a 7:1 return. From the point of view of the mother and the children, and from the financial perspective, these amendments deserve the Minister’s serious attention.

More broadly, this group has been focused on the important subject of support for families, both at a relatively early stage and at crisis points, such as when a child is removed into care. The purpose behind Amendment 68, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lord Farmer, is to ensure that there is universal provision of family support services. There is no question that such services are valued by the families who use them and can make a great difference to the lives of children and to their parents. We support the spirit of the amendment, which keeps universal services separate from those that are voluntary but targeted to more vulnerable families, as the noble Baroness knows from our earlier debates on Clause 3.

Amendments 68A and 68B seek to introduce the concept of earned autonomy for family support services, which is again something that we are very sympathetic to. I have the greatest respect for my noble friend Lord Farmer for his extensive work in this area, particularly in relation to family hubs. I look forward to hearing what the Minister might say about the expansion of family hubs, which the Government have described as

“a non-stigmatising gateway to targeted whole-family support”.

In normal-speak, I think that is a good thing.

Amendment 167, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, would require local authorities to report annually on early intervention services for children and families in their area. As the noble Baroness acknowledged, local authorities have annual reporting requirements, including in relation to their multi-agency safeguarding work. As I understand it, this amendment would make that more explicit in relation to early help. I just wondered whether this would not naturally fit as an update to the Working Together to Safeguard Children statutory guidance, as opposed to being in the Bill.

It is hard to argue with the spirit of Amendment 171, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I was sad to hear of her loss and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I am sure that, across the Committee, we are very grateful to those charities that offer great support to children, and their families, who have been bereaved. When I was in the department, I remember meeting the team at the Ruth Strauss Foundation—indeed, I went on to recommend it to extended family members, who benefited from its support. In some cases, when perhaps a parent has cancer, the death can be anticipated and support can happen pre bereavement as well as post bereavement, if the family wishes, but in other cases, such as cases of domestic homicide, the child in effect loses both parents—one parent has been killed and the other parent is in prison. Effective support in all these cases is to be encouraged. If accepted, this amendment would make the task of finding the right support so much easier for bereaved or soon-to-be-bereaved children.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for highlighting in this debate very important issues aimed at ensuring that children and families can get the support that they need at the right time. That is an enormously important theme of the Government’s reforms to children’s social care. In doing that, we are already taking forward recommendations from the independent review of children’s social care, mentioned by several people today, particularly the aim to rebalance the children’s social care system towards earlier intervention and supporting more children to stay safely with their families.

I shall speak first to Amendment 68, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, which raises the important issue of family support services. I appreciate the noble Lords’ intention with this amendment and confirm that the Government are already investing in the provision of family support nationally. I also accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, that there is a need to ensure that there is that investment. The noble Baroness outlined the fall in investment since 2010; for example, in the Sure Start programme. It took me back to one of the very last interventions that I made in the other place before I came starkly up against the electorate in 2010. I expressed concern that a different Government might not continue to support the development of family support services and Sure Start in a way in which that Government had. There was heckling and jeering, as tends to be more the case at the other end of the building than here, but I am afraid that what we saw in the intervening years was a reduction in support for precisely the sort of services that noble Lords today are, quite rightly, pushing the Government to ensure that we both develop and fund. That is why, as we have frequently referenced—I do so again—that this Government have provided over £500 million to local authorities to roll out the national Families First Partnership programme, which aims to prioritise earlier intervention and ensure that families can access the right support sooner.

To turn to some of the more detailed points, I note the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, regarding earned autonomy status for local authorities to not follow prescriptive criteria in determining the services to be delivered. This is a challenge: how do we enable local authorities to have the autonomy to build and link the services in a way that makes sense to them in their circumstances, while also ensuring that additional investment placed into preventive services is spent on that? I have considerable sympathy for the idea that there needs to be that flexibility. That is why the Government are not mandating the delivery of specific family support services by any local authorities through the programme. They all have flexibility to respond to need in their areas, taking account of available resources, and they are supported in thinking about what might be appropriate and what would work best by reference, for example, to the programme guide that the Government have issued and the work of foundations that are developing information about what is most effective and working well. It is of course important, as I say, that we are clear that the additional money allocated for this work is spent on it. Grant funding is therefore ring-fenced to ensure that it is spent on a range of preventive services. Within that ring-fence, there should be—and there is—flexibility for local authorities to think about the nature and combination of the services that they are providing.

Before I move on, I want to respond to the point that the noble Lord made not only about flexibility, as we have talked about, but about combining funding pots. It is an important point. While local authorities funded through the family hubs and Start for Life programme have the flexibility, as I have said, to tailor services to meet programme expectations and address local needs, combining funding is also an important bit of that flexibility. Many local authorities are combining funding with other funding sources to enhance support for families. It is important that they are enabled to do that, notwithstanding the accountability point that I have made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I would be grateful if the Minister would agree to go back and talk to her ministerial colleagues about this again. She is absolutely right that some of the effective targeted help and Section 17 types of help that she was talking about, set out in the Families First pathfinders, can be useful to some families, but these cases where a woman has already had multiple removals do not typically fit into that bracket; they go straight to care proceedings. The case load, if I remember rightly, is that each full-time Pause practitioner works with three women, so it is super-intensive and I think is complementary to this. I would just be grateful if she did not close the door on that as an option, particularly as I know that her noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, previously put this down as an amendment—I feel strengthened in that knowledge.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I have been persuaded in the course of this debate about the significance of this issue. I had some experience in previous work that I did in children’s social care about this, so I will certainly undertake to go back and talk to my colleagues about some more specificity around the particular requirements in these cases. Perhaps I can return to the noble Baroness with a bit more detail about that.

Amendment 171 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to establish a duty on local authorities to improve access to bereavement support services for children. Like others, I recognise and respect the noble Baroness for talking about her own experience of bereavement, as we also heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, identifying the enormous pressure that falls on families and particularly other children at the point at which they are bereaved. It is for this reason that the Government continue to consider how to improve access to existing bereavement support. There is a cross-government bereavement group, chaired by the Department of Health and Social Care and attended by officials from the Department for Education, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office, continuing to look at how we can improve access to support.

Following discussion by this group of opportunities to improve signposting of support—and as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester said, I would have appreciated being signposted to some support outside the family—we have recently added links to bereavement support specifically for children and young people on GOV.UK. Schools increasingly talk to their pupils about mental health and where to access further support, both as part of the curriculum and through their wider pastoral duties. The relationships and sex education statutory guidance specifies that teachers should be aware of common adverse childhood experiences, including bereavement. I hope that, bringing those things together, we are enabling an improvement in the support that we provide for children who have suffered bereavement. I hope that this, along with the continued investment in services for children and family support, reassures noble Lords that we are taking action on that.

In all these areas, I hope that I have provided, after a useful and important debate, some reassurance about the acceptance by the Government of all the issues identified during the course of the debate, but also about the action that the Government are taking to commit to and invest in improving outcomes for children and their families through effective support services. I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press these amendments, but I will certainly come back on the specific points and reflect on the case made in what I think has been a very important and helpful group of amendments.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, in speaking to the amendments in this group, I recognise that there is an enormous consensus in this debate about the significance of family and social relationships for looked-after children, for children in care and for all of us. This is why we feel so strongly that these are relationships we need to protect as far as possible for the children who are looked after by the state. It must be key, as several noble Lords have said, that we are able to maintain those strong relationships.

Perhaps at this point I should give a shout-out to my two sisters, who, after my mum, are the longest relationships by far that I have had in my life. As other noble Lords have said, when the going gets tough, it is your siblings who provide you with the support necessary—if you are as lucky as I am with mine—to get through those times.

We have a responsibility to help those children whose lives have been even more difficult to be able, wherever possible, to maintain those relationships. When a child is in care, as other noble Lords have said, the local authority must allow reasonable contact with the child’s parents, if it is consistent with the child’s welfare. These amendments seek to place equal duties on local authorities to allow reasonable contact with siblings of children in care. They also seek to strengthen wider family and social relationships for looked-after children.

We very much agree that it is important for a looked-after child’s welfare to, wherever possible, have and maintain positive relationships with their parents, siblings, wider family and friends. The importance placed on these relationships is echoed at all levels of a child’s care journey and is supported through current arrangements and statutory processes. We have heard in more than one debate today about the excellent work that has been done, for example, by lifelong links, which is supported in 22 local authorities by funding from the Government, and which is operating more widely than that. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, is right that, when it comes to relationships, we need to focus on quality as much as quantity and on the sustainability of those relationships.

For local authorities, there are existing duties in the Children Act 1989 to endeavour to promote contact between looked-after children and their relatives. This includes siblings, friends and other connected people, unless it is not reasonably practical or consistent with their welfare—the Children Act is clear about that. Good social work practice would ensure that there was a strong understanding of the people who are important in a child’s life, the nature of the relationships and an ability to be able to plan for how those relationships can be sustained.

Equally, when determining an appropriate placement for a child, local authorities must, as far as reasonably practical, ensure that the child can live with their sibling, if that sibling is also looked after. The importance of this is laid out in the care planning regulations. For those involved in care planning, regulations already make it clear that arrangements to promote and maintain contact with siblings must be included in a child’s care plan. This prioritises consistency, stability and lifelong loving relationships with those who are important to children and young people.

If a child is concerned about the level of contact that they have with their sibling or other family members, they should be encouraged to speak to a trusted person about this, be that their social worker, their independent reviewing officer—who has a responsibility to ensure that the plans being made for the child or young person are appropriate, including those that involve maintaining relationships—or an advocate. Under current legislation, in extreme circumstances children in care can apply to the court for contact with any named person, which could include a sibling, and siblings can seek permission from the court to apply for a contact order. Furthermore, as I think we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, the court should consider contact in making a care plan for that child.

For foster carers and, for example, staff caring for children in children’s homes, there is statutory guidance and regulations to promote positive relationships between a child and their family and friends. More broadly, a very strong theme in the Bill is our working to promote strong family networks in all areas of children’s social care—for example, through the measures on family group decision-making, which we discussed right at the beginning of Committee. That might be an appropriate way to address the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, raised about bereaved children. The noble Baroness is right that, in those cases, it is particularly important that, at the point at which they are bereaved, children would be able to maintain contact with those who they have left in their lives.

I hope I have recognised the important arguments behind both these amendments, and that I have provided some reassurance to noble Lords that existing laws, regulations and guidance already strongly value, and have an expectation around, the importance of sibling relationships and other relationships, while ensuring children’s welfare. I suspect that this is a place where the law, regulations and standards are already in place. What we need to do is focus on the significance of this and on the good practice of social work needed to enable it to happen. Social workers around the country will be focusing on it, and I hope us having had this debate will make it more likely that it will be brought to the fore in people’s thinking. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will feel reassured enough to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very empathetic response. Following her example, I guess I ought to give a shout-out to my brother. We have been through some quite difficult times together, and that is what leads to that enduring relationship.

I thank all noble Lords who participated in this debate. It has been one of those debates that shows this House at its very best, and that we can deal with issues to do with love and emotions. I am grateful for the Minister’s response. My reaction is as follows: it may well be that this is currently written into existing legislation and guidance, but I know from all the care leavers I used to speak to on a regular basis that, far too often, it simply does not have much impact on the ground—and I think this was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. One of my objectives in putting this amendment forward was to have something in the Bill that makes it absolutely obvious that sibling contact is a right. It would be really encouraging for children in care to know that it was there.

Between now and Report, it would be helpful to have further discussions about the extent to which the problem is that this is just not clear enough in law, and so we need to put something in—which, again, as was said, would not have any cost implications—or whether it is more to do with social work practice on the ground. I am a great believer in both/and, so I think we may well be returning to this on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the context for my Amendments 134 and 178 is, as we have heard in this short debate, that we face a very severe shortage of foster carers. As other noble Lords have said, this Bill feels like a huge missed opportunity to try to address this problem. Honestly, I do not really understand why the Government have not chosen to do more to address it—but perhaps the amendments in this group will offer the way.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, mentioned that there is currently a shortage of 5,000 foster carers in England; that is 33 foster carers per local authority. It just does not feel like an insuperable problem to find 33 homes across the country in each local authority—though, absolutely rightly, my noble friend Lady Spielman spoke of the very high prevalence of complex needs in children who go into foster care.

This speaks to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and others about a strategy, which would also address the recommendation in the MacAlister review that we need more flexible models of fostering. As we have heard, of just over 160,000 families who expressed an interest in becoming foster carers in 2020-21, only just over 2,000 were approved—a conversion rate of 1.3%. I understand that many applicants apply to multiple agencies and so get counted twice. There may be timing issues for potential carers, and there are structural challenges, including pay and the need for training, and difficulties in the application process, as we have heard. This is the most significant area for the roughly 83,000 children in care. Over 56,000 of them are in foster care, half of them with independent agencies and half in local authority foster care. That is a very big and important number, and it feels fundamental to address it.

It sits at the heart of what we might call the children’s homes problem of cost and profits, which we will debate in subsequent groups. If we had more foster carers, the pressure would come off children’s homes, prices would adjust and we would be in a much better situation, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Bird, put so convincingly, because the wraparound of foster care—the fact that there is a family and relationships—leads to vastly better outcomes for the child. For all those reasons, this is an important group, and I hope that Amendment 143 is one that the Minister takes very seriously.

My amendments are much simpler. Amendment 134 would give more flexibility to allow young children over the age of three to share a room. My intention is that this would apply to primary-aged children, although re-reading my amendment I think that my drafting skills have come through yet again. Having talked to directors of children’s services in London and other areas with high housing costs, I know that the number of potential foster carers with several spare rooms is very limited. I am aware that some organisations in the sector see this as a safeguarding risk, but I argue that we are already trusting the foster carer to care for a very vulnerable child. Within that, we should trust their judgment about the sleeping arrangements of the children in their home. Sadly, safeguarding risks are not confined to what happens in a child’s bedroom. This amendment could potentially add several hundred more places, at little or no cost, in areas with the greatest pressure to place children locally, and would avoid children being placed very far from home—as we have heard about several times today—their roots and their communities.

This is not the only way to expand capacity. Another would be to invest in initiatives such as the Greater Manchester Room Makers scheme and roll it out more widely. It provides funding for foster carers to renovate existing rooms or build extensions to allow them to care for more children.

My Amendment 178 seeks to clarify the delegated authority that foster carers have for the children in their care. This was tabled in the other place by the honourable Member for North Herefordshire and received a positive response from the Minister. I seek further confirmation from the Minister here that the Government still intend to consult on this point. Perhaps she could update the House on the likely timeline for the consultation and for the secondary legislation to be amended.

Thinking more broadly, and returning to Amendment 143, it would help the House if the Minister could share other ideas the Government are working on to improve recruitment and retention. I spoke recently to the organisation Now Foster, which is developing “weekenders”—that might not be the right term—which offer regular weekend placements for children who might be either in kinship or foster care, giving much needed rest and space to both parties, and a consistency and stability for the child or young person that can extend beyond the age of 18. Crucially, it also gives foster carers a chance for a more modest but still substantial commitment, rather than taking in a child full time with everything that entails. This idea—again, this came up in the MacAlister review—of having different options and different models of fostering is long overdue for more work.

My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham talked about the importance of a support network for foster carers. I visited an amazing group of foster carers—some brand new and about to receive their first child, some who had been fostering for over 20 years—who are part of an employee co-operative, Capstone Foster Care, in Peasedown St John in Somerset. Again and again they spoke eloquently about the impact of that network on their ability to foster and to offer love and care to very vulnerable children.

They also talked—this ties in with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson—about the need for a really positive recruitment campaign. Most people hear about fostering only when there is a case of severe neglect or worse. But across the House we have heard examples of many noble Lords who have either been foster carers or who recognise the extraordinary and life-changing work that foster carers do. We need that message to get outside this Chamber and out to people who might consider this and see it as a respected and important profession. We need more innovation in this area to unlock the potential in our communities to provide this kind of support for children who need it, and to improve retention.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a well-informed debate on the amendments in group 5 concerning foster care, particularly informed by those who have had personal experience. The noble Lord, Lord Young, gave his experience of being a foster carer and I agree that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, made a very important contribution on what it feels like to be a child in the system and the lifelong impacts that has.

I think there has been a consensus once again that foster carers offer crucial support to some of the most vulnerable children in our society. They provide love, stability and compassion to children and young people when they need it most. We very much share the concerns raised in this House about the falling numbers of fostering households—a fall of 9% since 2020—and the effect this has on children. Perhaps it was the late night I had had, but I felt marginally grumpy about the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that because there is not more about fostering in this legislation, somehow or another that means that this Government are not committed to righting the decline we have seen over recent years. Therefore, I will take the opportunity to spell out exactly what the Government have been doing. There is a tendency in this House, which is understandable because we are legislators, to think that things happen only if they are put into legislation. I hope I can demonstrate that there is plenty happening on fostering due to the actions of and investment put in by this Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bird (CB)]

I just wanted to remind us of a little bit of history. Napoleon said that a battle plan strategy was the most useless thing on earth but that you were lost without it.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

That is good, because I was about to say—although I think he called it a battle plan, not a battle strategy—that the Government will set out our plans for foster care in due course, bringing together the range of activities that is already happening and taking on board the need to go further in the way that noble Lords have rightly pushed us to today.

Amendment 105, introduced by my noble friend Lord Watson, is on the introduction of a national foster care register. As he outlined, fostering services currently maintain local registers of foster carers alongside records relating to prospective foster carers. A national foster care register would insert central government into the systems and processes of foster care oversight, which are currently deployed locally. But as he said, and as I think my honourable friend in the other place outlined in Committee there, we are considering the possible benefits and costs of a national register of foster carers as part of our wider reforms.

There are a range of proposals for such a register. It will require some careful consideration. Specifically, I am sure we all recognise the need to ensure that a national foster care register would also meet local needs and avoid unforeseen negative consequences, and that it would overcome some of the risks surrounding the security of sensitive data, as well as imposing additional bureaucracy on the sector. But we want to engage with fostering stakeholders on this issue to determine next steps, and we can see some of the advantages of the national register that my noble friend outlined.

Amendment 134, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is on the sharing of bedrooms for foster children to enable foster carers to look after more children in their home. She identified that one of the pushes for this comes back to one of the fundamental issues that we will discuss on upcoming clauses and which lies very much at the heart of the Government’s reforms: the insufficiency of high-quality places, fostering or otherwise, for the children who need them. I completely understand the belief that changing standards in this way might enable us to increase capacity.

I have already identified that the Government will invest money, for example, in allowing extensions and other ways that foster carers might alter their homes to provide more space and capacity for children. But it is also the case that our national minimum standards already allow foster children aged three or over to share a bedroom, subject to conditions being met, which are in place to safeguard and protect children. That means that fostered children, such as siblings, can share a bedroom where it is in the best interests of the child, provided that each child has their own area of the room.

We can update those national minimum standards at any time. We do not require a change to Section 23 of the Care Standards Act, as suggested in this amendment, to do so. The language in this amendment would change the tone of the national minimum standards. I am not averse to the point that is being made here; we just need to be careful about the balance that we are setting. It would shift the default position to present room sharing both as appropriate and, in fact, standard practice, rather than the current tone, where room sharing should be considered where it is not possible for each child to have their own room.

I think we all agree that children in foster care deserve to be treated as a good parent would treat their own children and to have the opportunity for as full an experience of family life and childhood as possible. I know that there are many good parents who will have children who share bedrooms, especially at a younger age, but I also know that for many children, fostered or otherwise, and for many parents, the gold standard would for them to have their own room. If we add to that the fact that children often enter foster care after experiencing neglect or abuse, including sexual abuse, and may have a greater need for their own personal space and for privacy, we can see the need to be careful about shifting the position to promoting sharing.

We recognise that room sharing in foster care may be suitable, as I have said, particularly for siblings, and we think it is right that flexibilities are already in place, but we are reluctant to suggest that room sharing should be promoted as standard practice. Importantly, we have seen no evidence from children and young people themselves to suggest that they want room sharing to become standard practice in foster care.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The Minister mentioned that the Government are putting funding into extensions and so forth. Will she write with details of how many additional places that funding is expected to secure? I do not mean precisely, but just to give a sense.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, I am happy to do that. Of course, that is just one part of the sufficiency work that the Government are doing and that other elements of the Bill aim to make progress on, but I will write specifically on that project.

Amendment 178 on delegated authority for foster carers, which is also tabled by the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Barran, would give foster carers more autonomy and flexibility. All foster carers should have delegated authority in relation to day-to-day parenting of the child in their care, such as routine decisions about health, hygiene, education and leisure activities. That is so that they can support the child in having a normal upbringing, full of the experiences and opportunities that any other child would have. Under the current system of delegated authority, if something is not listed on the child’s placement plan then the foster carer does not have delegated authority and they must check with their social worker before decisions can be made. Foster carers can only take decisions that are in line with the child’s agreed placement plan and the law governing parental responsibility. This amendment would change that current system of delegated authority.

I have considerable sympathy with the idea that if we are asking people to take on the crucial role of caring for children on a day-to-day basis and making them part of their families then they also need the authority to be able to do that in the rounded way that any parent would expect to have. That is why we have begun conversations with foster carers and fostering services about proposed changes to ensure that all foster carers should have delegated authority by default in relation to the day-to-day parenting of the child in their care. We think that reforming this policy area would benefit from a period of consultation with stakeholders to ensure that any change to delegated authority best reflects the interests of all parties but, following a consultation, we are committed to implementing necessary amendments to secondary legislation. We do not believe that we would need changes to primary legislation in order to do that. Delegated authority is outlined in the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010. I hope that provides some assurance to the noble Baroness that, in that area, we very much see the case being made and want to make progress.

With all the assurances and further information that I provided, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, as a local councillor in Liverpool, once a week I do what I call my “Keeping in touch”, where I go to each resident with a little form and ask them to fill out any particular concerns they have in the area: “Leave it outside your letterbox, and I’ll be back in an hour to pull it out”. I did the final household and thought, “I will finish now and go home”. The lady opened the door and said, “Everything is fine. We didn’t need to fill it out”. I said, “Oh, that’s good news. Goodbye”.

As I was walking down the path, the lady said, “Actually, there is something you could help me with.” I said, “What is it?” She said “No, I don’t think you can help me.” I said “Well, what is it?” She said, “I and my husband adopted two children when they were two-and-a-half years old. One is now 11 and the other is 12. The boy was severely traumatised as a two-and-a-half year old, so much so that he has to have regular therapy sessions. The problem is that the grant we got has been cut by nearly £2,000, and we now cannot afford the therapy sessions.” I said, “Okay, leave it with me and let me think this through.” I thought, “Well, I will put down a Written Question to the Minister.” We know how Written Questions work, do we not? Those who have been Ministers will know that, often, they try not to reveal all the facts as they happen to be.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Oh!

[Lord Storey (LD)]

Oh, goodness, I would not suggest that for one moment of the current Minister—or the previous Minister.

My Written Question was:

“To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the importance of the adoption and special guardianship support fund.”


The Answer from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, was:

“This government fully recognises the importance of support for adoptive and kinship children and families. The Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund … has been a valuable part of the support landscape for ten years. This is why we have provided £50 million of funding for the ASGSF for 2025/26, alongside £8.8 million for Adoption England, to complement the range of support available in local areas.”


I did a little further research, because that seemed to tell me that everything was okay and that this family need not worry: they were not getting any cuts. Almost half the ASGSF awards last year exceeded the new £3,000 allowance, so some children will receive cuts of almost 40%. Data shows that thousands of children will now go without the therapy they need as a result of this cut. Alongside this cut has gone a separate allocation of up to £2,500 per child per year for special assessments. This has been completely removed. Match-funding support for children with an exceptional level of need has also been removed. Previously, the ASGSF provided up to 50% of the funding for up to £30,000 per child, with the rest provided by the local authority. The consequences of these changes are that any new specialist assessment must now be paid for from the £3,000. Therapy care or support must also come within this budget, regardless of need. Support that was given may no longer be given.

Change can exacerbate issues for children with attachment and trauma-related needs, who require sustained, regular support. Building trust with a therapist takes time, but continuity of care will now be harder. Children with the most complex needs now face a highly uncertain future, which may may lead to increased exclusions, due to behavioural issues that were traditionally tackled with therapy. An increase in issues such as child-to-parent violence threatens family placements further.

This family just cannot cope any more because the funding, as we have heard, has been cut. Whether that is the element from the local authority or from the Government, I do not know, and I have been unable to look into that any further. The language we sometimes use in such cases is interesting. Need for funding is now framed as demand. Such language is insensitive to children who need the funding—SEND children as well as children who have experienced significant trauma.

I do not want to talk any longer on this. Given that we had the Statement yesterday from the Chancellor and there is a bit of extra money for education, maybe a small amount of it can be used in these cases. We all know the figures on fostering and adoption. Anybody who adopts a child—never mind two children—into their family, brings them up and supports them needs all the help we can give them. I feel lucky that, because I am in your Lordships’ House, I can use the opportunity to try to help this particular family. I hope the Minister will look sympathetically on my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

I have a lot of sympathy for Amendment 145, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson. As he pointed out, it is 20 years since we have had a review of the regulations, and in that time the number of children being adopted has stagnated in some areas and declined in others, despite this being the most permanent and secure solution for them. Maybe when he comes to close—although perhaps I misunderstood his amendment —the noble Lord could explain something. I was puzzled by the focus being exclusively on local authority adoption services, when, as he knows, many voluntary sector organisations also do great work in this area.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in group 6. This is the second group of amendments in a row where I think that, quite rightly, we in this Committee will recognise the enormously important contribution made by those people willing to take children into their homes and families as a result of adoption. As other noble Lords have said, and as I know from having spoken to people who have adopted children, it is something that can bring enormous pleasure, satisfaction and completion to some families, and is often very much wished for by families. However, because of the nature of the experiences that children have gone through and the history of some of those children, notwithstanding that a family when adopting a child take on responsibility for that child and they become part of their family, I completely understand the need for there to be ongoing support for children in those circumstances.

Without going too far into history, one of the very first pieces of legislation that I did the last time round when I was a Minister was the Bill that became the Adoption and Children Act 2002. At that point, there was still quite a lot of discussion and debate about whether it was legitimate to provide any support for children in adoptive families. Notwithstanding the concerns that have been expressed as a result of these amendments, it is the case that considerable progress has been made in understanding the nature of the challenge and the reward that comes from adoption, the types of experiences that children may well have had before going into adoption, the impact that that has on families, and the requirement to provide support on an ongoing basis for children who are adopted. I recognise that the amendments in this group cover that issue of support for adoptive and kinship children, as well as how we can ensure and review the quality of adoption support that is being provided.

This is a significant area, to which the Government are committed. Although there are some difficult elements in the amendments, I am nevertheless pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and my noble friend Lord Watson have tabled them and enabled us to talk about adoption.

I reiterate the point I previously made about fostering. The fact that something is not covered in this particular piece of legislation should not be taken as some sort of statement about the significance of that issue for this Government, or about its importance for children and families. The point of legislation is to address those areas which have shortcomings in the legislative framework. Our view, certainly at this moment in time, is that the adoption legislation framework is fit for purpose, and our focus needs to be on supporting Adoption England and regional adoption agencies to improve local practice and set national standards so that there are high-quality adoption services across the country. That needs to be the priority, rather than thinking about how and whether we need to change legislation. Adoption is a priority for this Government and will remain so. Of course, most importantly, it is a vital permanence option for some children.

On the points made about the adoption and special guardianship support fund, I note the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the history of adoption—

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

It is actually Lord Russell. I have told this to the House before, but in 1959 my grandfather and Bertrand Russell—the then Earl Russell—jointly wrote a letter to the editor of the Times that said: “Dear Sir, we would like to point out that neither of us is the other. Yours, Russell, Russell of Liverpool”.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am glad to know that I am not the only person who has made that mistake. I apologise to the Chamber and to the noble Lord, Lord Russell.

The noble Lord talked about the important work done by the all-party group and part of the history of ensuring that there is sufficient focus through government activity to provide the necessary support for adoptive families. The adoption and special guardianship support fund has given valuable support to over 53,000 individual children over the 10 years that it has been in place. Many have received support for multiple years, which is a point that I will return to when talking about the criteria.

The Government have continued to support the ASGSF; we provided £50 million for 2025-26. There has been an increase in demand—some noble Lords argued it was an increase in need. Then you face a challenge, regardless of how much money is allocated, as to whether you provide more support for fewer children and families, or ensure a level of support for a larger number of children and families.

The revised funding criteria effective from April 2025 will continue to enable children to receive an excellent level of support, many at similar levels to before, and £3,000-worth of therapy remains a substantial amount of support. On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about the assessment, children and families receive this support over several years and I think I am right in saying that this £3,000 would include the assessment. Perhaps the next year or the year after that, it would not be necessary to redo the assessment, and £3,000 would fund 19 to 20 hours of therapy on current average costings. As I say, there are many children and families who are receiving similar levels of support as before, although I recognise the case brought to the attention of this Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, where families have seen that as a cut in the provision that they have been able to receive.

Local authorities can continue to supplement available funding locally through the mainstream children’s services budget, if assessments deem this necessary. As I have said, the revised criteria will ensure that all children can continue to receive support. It is important to recognise the significance of the contribution that this support provides, even if in some cases it does not feel as though it is enough support to respond to the considerable challenges that families are facing. For that reason, the Government recognise that recent changes to funding levels came unexpectedly, and therefore local areas had limited time to plan.

I hope I can provide some reassurance that applications under the revised criteria are now being not only received but processed as speedily as possible, so that children can receive the therapy that they need. The Government will continue to assess the implementation of adoption support arrangements, including the adoption and special guardianship support fund. We will be taking forward discussions on the delivery and management of funds in future years. Across the department, we have heard the concerns that have been expressed in the Committee this evening and, most importantly, that have come from the families affected.

The ASGSF, like other government expenditure, is subject to business planning decisions following the spending review, and these decisions will obviously need to take into account the full range of government priorities. The ASGSF is not a statutory arrangement. We believe that it should remain flexible to provide an effective service, and that it would not be helpful—as proposed in these amendments—for decisions on funding levels to be made in isolation from consideration of other budgets. However, as I say, I recognise the strength of feeling expressed today and by others outside Parliament.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

I have just checked, and I think the Minister mentioned that, with the £3,000, the average number of sessions that would be allowed is about 12.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It would be 19.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

The range of applications for the support fund over the last few years has typically been between 20 and 50 sessions per annum, so it is right on the margin.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I did say that it would fund 19 to 20 hours. I also made the point that this is something that does not happen within only one year; it is something that can continue, in order to provide support.

However, I also said that I recognise the strength of feeling expressed today and by others outside Parliament. We will of course take these issues into account when making decisions about how to allocate funding from the DfE budget for future years. I hope this will assure noble Lords that we are considering these issues very carefully.

On Amendment 145 in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson, I agree with my noble friend that adoption support should be high-quality. Of course, Ofsted already reviews how well authorities are delivering adoption services and publishes reports on each authority every three years. The Secretary of State has powers under the Education and Inspections Act 2006 to require Ofsted to provide information on or conduct an inspection of any specified function of the local authority that falls within its remit, which may include adoption support services. Ofsted reports regularly on adoption support in local authorities, children’s social care inspection reports and on adoption agencies.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Finally, I absolutely support my noble friend Lord Bellingham’s Amendment 107D and the very important concerns he raised about how the restructuring of integrated care boards will impact their capacity to contribute fully to regional care co-operatives, which is so vital for their success.

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

My Lords, before I turn to the amendments in the first group, I want to be clear, as many noble Lords have recognised, that the measures in Clause 10, together with those that we will come to later in Clauses 12 to 18, are part of an overarching, broad-ranging strategy to fix the market for placements for looked-after children.

The review conducted by my honourable friend Josh MacAlister, which several noble Lords have quite rightly referenced, and the report from the Competition and Markets Authority were explicit that the placement market is dysfunctional and that some private providers are making excessive profits from placements for our most vulnerable children. We are now taking concerted action to address this, including through measures in the Bill, but also through a wide range of non-legislative measures, to deliver a broader range of providers in the market so that local authorities have more options when finding the right place for children in their care. These must be the right homes in the right parts of the country, so that children do not have to move miles from their communities and support networks, as many noble Lords have referenced in this debate. These homes must be delivered at a sustainable cost to the taxpayer by providers no longer making excessive profits. A failure to address the dysfunction in the system has led to many of the issues that noble Lords are rightly identifying today, which they hope and expect us to respond to—not only, I suspect, in these clauses relating to regional care co-operatives but more broadly in the action that we are taking to fix that dysfunctional market.

Amendments 108 to 116 in the name of my noble friend Lady Longfield seek to amend the definition of local authorities’ strategic accommodation functions as defined by this clause to ensure that it meets the current and future needs of looked-after children. This and my noble friend’s contribution exactly get to the crux of the problems we are trying to solve here. She is correct, as I have already suggested, about the issues raised by the lack of sufficiency caused by the current placement market for children. Children being too far away from home; too big cost pressures; inappropriate placements: those are all things that this provision and the other elements of our strategy are aimed at addressing.

Amendment 119ZA from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, sets out the principles that local authorities that have formed a regional care co-operative, following a direction from the Secretary of State, would have to adhere to when commissioning accommodation for looked-after children. She is right that the provisions in this clause relate to the direction powers for the Secretary of State in circumstances either where local authorities have refused to take part in regional arrangements or perhaps where regional arrangements have been set up and local authorities might not have managed to be part of any of those arrangements. I certainly think it is already the case that authorities are trying to bring themselves together into regional arrangements, precisely to be able to solve some of the issues that we have outlined.

The Government completely agree that there must be sufficient accommodation for all children who are looked after by their local authority and that in future this accommodation must meet their needs and provide appropriate support. It should allow them to live as close to home as possible, where that is in their interests. That is precisely the reason for trying to ensure that the market operates more effectively.

But it is also the case that there are existing legal requirements on local authorities to the effect of some of the understandable calls that have been made in these amendments and by other noble Lords. Local authorities already have a general statutory duty under Section 22G of the Children Act 1989 to take such steps, as far as is reasonably practicable, to ensure that there is sufficient accommodation within their area to meet the needs of looked-after children. They are also under a duty, via Sections 22 and 22C of the same Act, to provide accommodation that meets the needs of looked-after children by ensuring it is consistent with the child’s welfare and has due consideration to the child’s age and understanding, as well as their wishes and feelings. Finally, they have a statutory duty under Section 22C(8)(a) and (9) of the 1989 Act to ensure they provide accommodation that allows children to live near their home, unless it is inconsistent with the child’s welfare or not reasonably practicable. Those duties will all remain.

The problem is not that there is no legal recognition of these issues and the need for them to be taken into consideration in providing sufficient accommodation and placements for children. It is that the market has prevented local authorities being able to fulfil their statutory requirements. That is why regional care co-operatives, which in the legislation are called “regional co-operation arrangements”, will assist local authorities in meeting these duties, including by analysing what accommodation is needed for children across the region, publishing sufficiency strategies, recruiting and supporting foster parents and commissioning care places, as recommended by both the review conducted by Josh MacAlister and the report from the Competition and Markets Authority. They will support local authorities to carry out their strategic accommodation functions but, as I have suggested, these functions are not new and are already in law, including the duty to take steps, as reasonably practicable, to ensure sufficient accommodation for looked-after children. Any decision-making responsibility for where individual children are placed, however, will continue to rest with local authorities.

Amendment 116A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would prevent the Secretary of State adding to a local authority’s strategic accommodation functions for regional care co-operatives. I would like to reassure the noble Baroness of the safeguards in place regarding the power to add to the list of strategic accommodation functions to be exercised through regional care co-operatives. I slightly lost track of whether she was accusing the Government of currently having a Henry VIII power within the legislation— I will go back and check.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I was aware that my remarks may not have been clear that, in the department’s own memorandum, it describes this power as being akin to a Henry VIII power.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I will certainly take advice and look carefully at that, but I assure the Committee that the appropriate committee, the name of which escapes me, has of course looked in detail at the delegated provisions within the legislation and we will be responding to the committee and covering off any issues that might be of the sort of concern that the noble Baroness raises.

I hope to provide some further reassurance on that. First, the scope of regulations is limited to those local authority functions covered by specific sections of the Children Act 1989, namely Section 22A, the duty to accommodate looked-after children; Section 22C, how looked-after children should be accommodated by the local authority; and Section 22G, the duty to ensure sufficient accommodation for looked-after children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I had actually looked at all the data currently collected, and I am grateful for the summary given to the Committee just now, but the amendments are directed at understanding where these children are going and how those specific placements work out, so that need can be assessed and planning for future need can be made. They are also directed specifically at the numbers of places and the children who go into those. I appreciate that burdening any party with more data collection is never attractive, but this is about children being taken from home and placed with strangers—which, even as an adult, does not bear thinking about—and waking in the morning and coming downstairs in a strange home.

I really implore the Government to give some consideration to the basic humanity of this. It has cross-party support in this House and has been supported by numerous charities and by the Labour MP Josh MacAlister’s independent review. There is a consensus. What I am not hearing—and perhaps I am missing it—is why we would not seek this data so that we can improve the outcomes for these children.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am always willing to allow noble Lords to intervene, but I was actually coming to another paragraph in my speaking note, which I hope addresses the point that the noble Baroness makes. The Government are not suggesting that the current analysis or collection of data is sufficient. That is why we intend to improve our data on placements, as we set out in Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive. This will give local authorities better information, as she suggests, to assess need and the longer-term demand for placements and to support the delivery of the functions that we are asking regional care co-operatives to carry out under Clause 10. It will also be published on GOV.UK.

I do not know whether that assures the noble Baroness that the Government do have some humanity but I take her point, and that is why I was coming to the reassurance—I hope—that the Government do want to ensure that we have better data, including being able to address the issues around outcomes that she identified. That is why we will also be bringing forward a national data programme that will address the gap in national and regional data, particularly around the underlying costs of children’s social care placements, but we will continue to think about how we can improve the data that is available to us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise for not being present at the beginning of the discussion of these amendments. One issue that I was worried about many years ago, and I would be surprised if it did not happen still, is the fact that once a child moves from its local authority area to a local authority somewhere else, the sending local authority completely loses contact with anything that happens to the child—even though, as I understand it, it retains a certain responsibility. I wonder whether anything can be done to make sure that each local authority—that which the child comes from and that which the child goes to—is actually in touch and discussing what happens.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As usual, my friend the noble and learned Baroness makes an important point about the application of the law in this particular case. I think, as she suggests, that legal accountability and responsibility remains with the authority placing the child, but that does not mean that, in practical terms, there should not be engagement, and I would have thought that that would have been good practice. I also think that it is important that there is clarity about where the responsibility stays. That goes for the care co-operatives as well.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the extremely comprehensive response that she has given the Committee; it lasted a while but she covered a lot of ground on a lot of amendments.

I certainly agree with what she had to say about the wider strategy of trying to fix the current placement market and, above all, making sure that the right home is in the right place for children around the country. She certainly gave me some comfort on the role of the RCCs and the way in which they are going to be able to help local authorities and work with them and take pressure off them. I am grateful that she mentioned that there is going to be work in progress to look at the consequences of the abolition of NHS England.

On the role of the ICBs, I should have been aware of Section 10 of the Children Act 2004, because I was on that Bill committee many years ago and I remember the clauses about multi-agency safeguarding and the other bodies that are involved in this process.

I am very grateful to the Minister. I am sure that colleagues here will look very carefully at what she said. If need be, I for one will want to discuss this further with her and will look carefully in more detail at her reply, and maybe come back to this on Report. In the meantime, I thank her and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to speak to Amendments 119 to 124 very briefly. We have touched on some very important points, and there is something that still needs to be crystallised. As others have said, these are some of the most troubled children in the system. They are also the ones whose care is probably the most expensive of all. Such specialised arrangements have to be made. We have touched on the tensions here between local authorities, the health service and the justice system. One of the reasons for the increase in the number of orders is the reduction in the number of justice secure beds and also tier 4 mental health beds. We have this terrible lacuna around children whom the health system deems to have, for example, untreatable personality disorders but who very clearly need to be looked after somewhere where both they and others can be kept safe and to have everything that we can do to improve their lives and to help make life work for them on a permanent basis in a healthy, humane way. This is an enormous challenge. I would very much like to hear the Minister explain how the health functions of government are also going to be tied into making the deprivation of liberty scheme work.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, as others have said during the course of this important debate, Clause 11 is about provision for some of the most vulnerable children in the country and the importance of ensuring that adequate support and necessary safeguards are available to them. The measures in Clause 11 brought forward by the Government seek to bring more children, who would otherwise be deprived of their liberty under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, into a statutory scheme where they will benefit from enhanced safeguards and protections. I will say more in response to specific amendments about those enhanced safeguards and protections.

The clause provides a statutory framework to authorise the deprivation of liberty of looked-after children in provision other than a secure children’s home where there are not enough places, and which cannot meet the needs of all this cohort. Noble Lords will be aware of the pressing need to ensure that these children are provided with sufficient suitable placements to meet their various needs, including in Scotland.

This brings me to government Amendments 125 and 128, which will allow local authorities and others in Scotland to seek authorisation in Scottish courts to deprive children of their liberty in relevant accommodation in England. As noble Lords will be aware, relevant accommodation will have the primary purpose of care and treatment and will also be capable of being used to deprive a child of his or her liberty if required in connection with the provision of care and treatment. We are also making a consequential change to amend the language from “restrict” to “deprive”, to ensure consistency with existing amendments to Section 25 of the Children Act 1989 provided by Clause 11. These amendments will ensure that Scottish local authorities can access all forms of accommodation to enable a child to be deprived of their liberty in a placement that best meets their needs.

Amendment 119A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, addresses important issues around how best to support and protect another vulnerable group of children by seeking to allow children who have an education, health and care plan and who are in residential schools to be deprived of liberty in those settings under this legislation. The primary purpose of a residential school is to educate the children living there. Each child’s EHCP will have specified requirements to meet the child’s educational needs. In contrast, Section 25 is a specific legal route for placing looked-after children in specific accommodation where there is a need to avoid absconding or injury to the child or another person, often due to complex trauma. Clause 11 will not require any child to move from a residential school that is meeting the child’s needs. Where deprivation of liberty is required for a child living in a residential school, mechanisms other than Section 25 can be considered. For older children, that might include an application to the Court of Protection.

Amendment 119B seeks to remove “injure” from the clause but, as the noble Baroness spells out, is probing what is meant by the terms within the criteria under Section 25 of the Children Act. I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify that “injure” in this context has a wide meaning, including physical, mental or emotional injury. The criterion for an order under Section 25 is long-standing and has been well tested by the courts. I confirm for the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that Section 25 orders are issued by the family courts. I am confident, given the long-standing and well-tested procedures for Section 25, that it will continue to ensure that children can be deprived of their liberty to keep them safe where appropriate and necessary.

Amendment 120A seeks to ensure access to education for children in the new relevant accommodation outlined in Clause 11. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that access to education for our most vulnerable children is of the utmost importance to ensure that they can thrive and get on well in life. That is why there is substantial existing legislation in this regard, setting out the legal duties on local authorities to promote children’s educational attainment and include educational needs within care plans, as well as regulatory requirements for children’s homes to meet children’s educational needs. The intention behind “relevant accommodation”, which will be registered children’s homes, is to focus on ensuring that the child obtains the relevant treatment, which may involve depriving them of their liberty, but where they may also be able to have, for example, continued access to the community, including for education. It is also more likely to provide the closeness to the community and to their homes which several noble Lords have rightly said is an important right and need of children that must be continued.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I thank the Minister. Can she simply confirm in the letter that the position may be that we are left with a residual group of children who will still need the inherent jurisdiction? It might be that the legislation just does not reach quite far enough at the moment.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I will clarify that in the letter.

On Amendment 131 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on the important matter of the use of restraint on children in care and subject to deprivation of liberty orders, it is vital that children are safe and that restraint is used only where appropriate, including when they are moving between settings and services. We take these concerns very seriously. We will consider guidance on restraint in due course.

However, the question about children being handcuffed remains, and I will endeavour to get more detail about that and to come back to the noble Baroness. Providers, in conjunction with placing authorities, are under an obligation to use the minimum appropriate restriction to keep a child safe.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I may be a little too soon, but I wonder whether the Government are minded to ensure that there is, as my amendment would provide, some kind of reporting mechanism to keep track of things. There may be cases where that is necessary. Surely this is something there should be an annual report on so that we can see the direction of travel and whether there is a problem that needs to be tackled.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Noble Lords are very premature today. I was coming not quite to that but to something that I hope will be satisfactory in relation to that reporting mechanism.

Ofsted, as the independent regulator of children’s homes, manages incidents of restraint on a case-by-case basis under its inspection framework. The children’s homes regulations place a requirement on homes to record any incidents of restraint and on the registered person to inform Ofsted of any incident in relation to a child that they consider to be serious. We think that Ofsted inspectors are best placed to scrutinise individual incidents of restraint and the circumstances around them and to ensure that care providers are minimising its use. We are not clear that a yearly report to Parliament aggregating that data would add anything in this case, although it would create an additional burden and risk distraction from this important work. It would, in fact, probably be significantly less effective in safeguarding children and recording the incidents than the Ofsted approach currently being used.

Amendment 133 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, seeks to promote family and other social relationships for children subject to deprivation of liberty orders by publishing local authority plans to support children in that regard. As mentioned in respect of earlier amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, I reiterate the Government’s agreement that, wherever possible, it is vital for a child’s welfare to have positive family and social relationships. Given that the Children Act 1989 and the supporting guidance already seek to ensure that family and other relationships for looked-after children are promoted while keeping children safe, and that this forms part of Ofsted’s inspections of local authorities, I am not sure it is appropriate or necessary to increase the burden on local authorities by mandating them to publish that information. I recognise the points made by the noble Lord, or it may have been somebody else speaking on his behalf, about the effectiveness of the lifelong links programme. I think we referenced that previously, and I can see the enormous benefit that can come from it.

Amendment 134C tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to ensure the affirmative procedure for regulations made under Section 25 of the Children Act 1989. I agree with the noble Baroness that it is important to ensure that regulations on this matter are subject to the correct scrutiny. She referred to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report in which this was raised. We are grateful to the committee for its scrutiny. We are carefully considering its recommendations and will respond in due course.

Amendment 506B in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson seeks to delay commencement of Clause 11 until regulations are made to ensure that non-means-tested legal aid is available in relation to applications to deprive a child of their liberty under Section 25 of the Children Act 1989. I assure my noble friend that where an application is made to deprive a child of their liberty as a result of any measure the Bill brings forward, those children will be eligible for state-funded legal aid representation using the same criteria that currently apply to all children subject to orders under Section 25. This means that children will be able to access legal aid without needing to satisfy means testing.

I hope that noble Lords think I have provided nearly all the detail requested in these amendments. On that basis, I commend the government amendments to the Committee and hope that noble Lords feel able not to press theirs.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

This may be a rather silly question, but in my experience of the Atkinson secure accommodation unit, every child needs at least two carers. There are even children who need three. I wonder how a children’s residential care home will manage a child deprived of liberty. It will be an extreme case and the child will be unbelievably difficult to look after.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Nevertheless, we believe that it is possible. On the definition of relevant accommodation, we believe that it is possible to find those sorts of homes—sometimes supported by the use of technology to help maintain security for children, and certainly needing a certain level of staffing, as the noble and learned Baroness said—and that, for many children, it is preferable to live in that type of accommodation as opposed to the alternative, which has been to be deprived of their liberty under the inherent jurisdiction of the courts. Actually, some of that type of accommodation may well be more suitable for things such as maintaining contact, having education and being closer to the community.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

125: Clause 11, page 17, line 12, at end insert—
“(6A) In subsection (5A), for “restrict the child’s” substitute “deprive the child of their”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures consistency with the terminology in section 25 of the Children Act 1989 as amended by clause 11.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

128: Clause 11, page 17, line 24, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
“(9) In section 93 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (interpretation)—(a) in the definition of “secure accommodation”, omit paragraph (b);(b) after that definition insert—““secure accommodation” , in relation to England, means secure accommodation within the meaning of section 25 of the Children Act 1989 or relevant accommodation within the meaning of that section;”.(10) In section 202(1) of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 (asp 1) (interpretation)—(a) in the definition of “secure accommodation”, omit paragraph (b);(b) after that definition insert—““secure accommodation” , in relation to England, means secure accommodation within the meaning of section 25 of the Children Act 1989 or relevant accommodation within the meaning of that section,”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the clause 11 amendments to section 25 of the Children Act 1989, to allow local authorities in England and Wales to seek authorisation for the deprivation of liberty of children in accommodation provided for care and treatment in England, extend to local authorities in Scotland.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Even if my very crude calculation is too high, it does give a sense that the return on investment of the Government buying additional homes—accepting the earlier amendment from my noble friend Lady Sanderson, and addressing the very real capacity problem—would be very high. So, I really urge the Government to consider that. We need a more fundamental reform of capacity to get to a place where we have public and non-profit models which would better serve the financial stability that we need, and most importantly, the welfare of children.

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

My Lords, I shall speak to amendments in group 4. As other noble Lords have identified, we have a market that is dysfunctional and not working appropriately. That results in the types of pressures and complexities for local authorities that we have heard about and has been described by several reports.

In 2022, the Competition and Markets Authority found that the children’s social care placement market was dysfunctional. It found that the largest private providers were making profit margins significantly above what would be expected in a well-functioning market. The LGA also found, in 2023, that the 20 largest independent providers made profits exceeding £300 million in a year. There is a considerable discrepancy between the levels of profits made in this market and those made, on average, across non-financial businesses in the rest of the economy. I do not believe that there should not be a market in this particular area, but it is completely clear that the excess profits being made are not the sign of a properly functioning market. They are the sign of a market that is distorted, dysfunctional and failing to serve children and young people and the local authorities which are paying the costs of funding the profits, as opposed to investing in their children.

We clearly need to make reforms, and that is what the Bill is partly about. I will come to some of the other reforms not included in the Bill that are also part of the overall programme. Additionally, local authorities currently have no way of knowing if a provider, or members of its wider corporate group, is at risk of failing financially. That is why amendments in this group cover Clauses 14 and 15 of the Bill and related issues.

I will start by addressing the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about Clause 14 standing part of the Bill. Clause 14 introduces a new financial oversight scheme for children’s social care, a key part of our wider reforms of the market. We are aware that a provider of children’s social care places suddenly closing its provision as a result of financial failure could have a significantly detrimental impact on the care and stability of where children and young people live. Currently, as I have said, local authorities have no way of knowing whether a private provider or its corporate owners are at risk of failing financially. If a large provider were to fail and suddenly exit the market without warning, it could be difficult for local authorities to find alternative placements for those children or places that appropriately met their needs. That is why we are developing this new financial oversight scheme in children’s social care. This will, for the first time, increase financial and corporate transparency of difficult-to-replace children’s social care providers, allow for an accurate, real-time assessment of financial risk and strengthen forward planning.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, rightly asked some detailed questions about how the system will work. We are not developing this completely from first principles. We have worked closely with the Care Quality Commission to learn from its existing market oversight scheme, which operates for a similar purpose in adult social care. That was set up in the wake of the collapse of Southern Cross in 2011. We are confident that we can operationalise this and make it effective.

The way in which the scheme is being designed means that those on the scheme will also be required to submit a recovery and resolution plan containing information on risks to a provider’s financial stability and plans to reduce those risks. The Secretary of State may also require providers or a corporate group member on the scheme of heightened financial risk to undergo an independent business review. The noble Baroness asked whether the independent business review would use the recovery and resolution plan. For reasons that I will explain, those are two important but slightly separate elements of the scheme.

Amendment 134A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, seeks to require all local authorities to publish the prices that they pay for private placements of children’s homes on an annual basis. Before I get into the detail of the amendment, the noble Baroness suggested that other parts of the overarching strategy that we must put right in this failing market were potentially not being taken forward. That is not right. The fact that something is not in this legislation does not mean that it is not part of the Government’s overall approach to improving the sufficiency of placements. Alongside the legislative provisions in this Bill, we are also developing a national data programme to address that gap in national and regional data around the underlying costs of children’s social care placements. We are also extending our national support programme to provide additional support to local authorities in forecasting, commissioning and market shaping. We are investing considerably in local authority capacity. There will be £560 million in capital investment between now and 2029-30 to refurbish and expand children’s homes and foster-care placements, alongside additional investment in foster-care sufficiency.

On the point about market diversification, raised by my noble friend Lady Thornton, we are exploring options to encourage new providers such as charities and ethical investors to enter the market. I will certainly talk to my honourable friend Minister Daby about how we can bring people to a round table to think about that market diversification.

We are improving both the workforce and the registration of new children’s homes and supported accommodation to support the reforms we are making to the market. This is a wide-ranging, strategic and important programme of work, and in the Bill we are looking at the legislative elements of that.

I agree with those noble Lords who talked about the importance of data transparency. That will be part of our wider package of measures and will cover not only placements in children’s homes but fostering and supported accommodation placements. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, is supportive of the need for that change. I assure her of our ongoing commitment to it. We want to ensure that local authorities have the necessary information, capability and tools to shape the market, negotiate more effectively, secure better-suited placements and achieve greater value for money. It is, of course, also a function of an appropriately working market that there is better and clearer information than has been the case up until now.

On the point about whether and how we do that with local authorities, we are clear that these changes should be supportive in nature rather than seeking to add additional burdens to local authorities. For that reason, we are considering the best way to help local authorities to make informed decisions when commissioning placements—utilising the data we expect them to collect on costs—and how they can provide better data and cost transparency. We will outline more plans on that in due course. I agree with the principle about the need for much better information.

Amendment 140 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, seeks to apply the financial oversight scheme to providers of supported accommodation. I assure noble Lords that supported accommodation providers will be in scope for the financial oversight scheme. They are not in the Bill, which reflects how this type of provision is dealt with in the Care Standards Act. That Act was extended to cover supported accommodation by regulations. To ensure consistency, we will similarly apply financial oversight to supported accommodation through regulations, and that will occur once the financial oversight scheme comes into force. As I have said, the scheme will increase financial and corporate transparency of the most difficult to replace providers of supported accommodation, alongside the other forms of provision that have already been identified.

Amendment 140A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is where we get into some of the detail about the independent business review and the recovery and resolution plan. I want to reassure the noble Baroness that the independent qualified person undertaking the IBR will of course be able to request the provider’s recovery and resolution plan if that is necessary to inform their assessment. The RRP is a proactive contingency plan that requires providers to mitigate risks and prepare for the worst-case scenario of financial failure in a way that minimises negative impacts on children. On submission, a provider’s RRP will be reviewed by experts in my department. I can assure the noble Baroness that we will of course ensure we have the appropriate expertise to be able to do that. As we are basing this on a similar model for adult social care, there is good learning and understanding about what will be required.

Separately, if we judge that there is a significant risk to a provider’s financial sustainability, the department may instruct a qualified person to conduct an independent review of its business. The IBR will examine the nature and extent of risks to a provider’s financial sustainability and provide additional assurances to the department in its assessment of financial risk. As I have said, that may well include a consideration of the RRP and, of course, the independent review of the business will be carried out by people with specific expertise in this area. We may well need to look for particular expertise for that.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness’s speech makes me think that looking at what “excessive profit” means, or at least what the Government think about it, would not be a bad idea, because we are agreed that these services are often gone to because the state cannot or will not provide them. What we consider to be reasonable to pay for them is something the whole Committee should be concerned about. I am sure—or at least I hope—that the Government have given this some deep thought, and finding out in a little more detail what that will be will help consideration on this and forthcoming business. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

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

My Lords, as I said in Committee on Tuesday, in 2022 the Competition and Markets Authority found the children’s social care placement market to be dysfunctional. It found that the largest private providers were making profit margins significantly above what would be expected in a well-functioning market. Most significantly, notwithstanding the profit levels that are being made, we know that there are still insufficient high-quality placements for children who desperately need them. To that extent, the profit levels being made are not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, suggested, driving the sort of supply that we want to see.

The amendments in this group cover Clauses 15, 16 and 17, which implement important legislative elements of our children’s social care placement market reforms: the new profit-capping powers and their associated financial penalties. Introducing profit-capping powers will ensure that we have further powers to curb profiteering if the wider package of measures that I outlined on Tuesday, which we expect to rein in excessive profit-making, do not have their intended effect. This is a power to have in place if other elements of the programme do not work.

I turn to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on whether Clause 15 should stand part of the Bill. Having outlined the broad intention of the profit cap, I want to be clear that, although some private providers are clearly doing brilliant work, we want to ensure that all providers deliver high-quality placements at sustainable cost. As I say, we know that this is not always happening.

The Competition and Markets Authority found the market to be dysfunctional and estimated that the largest private children’s social care placement providers were making profit margins of between 19% and 36%—well above what would be expected in a well-functioning market. As I have said previously, excess profits have not led to sufficient supply in this market. Furthermore, making these levels of profit from providing placements for some of our most vulnerable children is unacceptable and must end.

This clause provides important backstop powers to ensure that the Government can take action, if needed, to end profiteering. It also sends a clear signal to providers that the Government will not hesitate to take regulatory action to restrict this unacceptable behaviour if profit-making is not reined in. It is not the Government’s intention to extend these powers to any other sectors at this point, although I can confirm that the provisions would cover supported accommodation, along with the other elements noble Lords have already outlined.

To be frank, I hope that it does not become necessary to use these powers. I hope that people see the writing on the wall that there is an impact from the other elements of the Government’s plans, and that we see profits delivered at a more reasonable level and, more importantly, placement sufficiency improving. However, if it became necessary to use these powers, the clause already includes important safeguards through restrictions on the powers to ensure that they are used appropriately. Of course, if they were to be used, the point at which that was determined would be dependent on market conditions and profit levels at that particular point.

Regulations may be made only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that they are necessary on value-for-money grounds. The Secretary of State must also have regard to the welfare of looked-after children and the interests of local authorities and providers, including the opportunity to make a profit. Crucially, this clause also requires the Secretary of State to consult before making regulations. This will be particularly important to ensure that all interests are considered in determining issues, such as how a cap would be calculated and the level at which it would be set. That would be the point at which the particular nature of profit levels—which the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, asked about—would be considered in detail. In addition, Clause 15 also provides for regulations to be made that set out important details about the administration of any future profit cap by providing for annual returns from registered providers and the ability to request supplementary information. I hope that noble Lords can see from the discussions we have had on this Bill—notwithstanding other areas—just how important these powers are to ensuring that the Government can take proportionate action, if needed, to restrict profit-making in the market.

Amendments 504A and 505A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seek to require the Secretary of State to publish a report that would clarify the supply and capacity of independent children’s homes and independent fostering agencies, and the expected impact of the profit cap on the number of available placements, before Clause 15 is commenced. To reiterate, if the profit cap was to be commenced, this would be at a later stage, at which there may well be a different set of market conditions. We intend to use the powers in Clause 15 only if profiteering is not brought under control through the wider package of measures that we have set out.

The consultation requirement in this clause is particularly important because it will outline the details of the proposed cap itself and require the Government to respond and publish that response. This will set out our rationale, including on the matters in the noble Baroness’s amendment, if we judge that a cap is needed. In addition, the Explanatory Memorandum to the regulations will set out the policy rationale. In effect, that already fulfils the aim of these amendments to require a report to be published. In response to the noble Baroness’s question, the regulations will, of course, be made by virtue of the affirmative resolution procedure, so there will be the opportunity to cover these matters in debate and address their potential impact. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness that a report on the impact and design of the profit cap would be necessary before it could be implemented.

I turn to Amendment 142A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which seeks to limit the ability of the Secretary of State to impose financial penalties. I understand her specific questions. We expect the vast majority of any penalties issued to fall on corporate structures of one form or another. First, however, as we said on Tuesday, an individual might run a provider within scope—for example, a children’s home—as a sole trader. It would seem strange and surprising if that sole trader were making profits that would be likely to breach a cap, but it would be a bit bizarre if that were way to avoid a profit cap, were it to be necessary to introduce one.

Secondly, even within a corporate structure, there might be an individual who is personally culpable for a breach under the requirements of Clauses 14 and 15. The ability to issue a financial penalty in those circumstances might act as a strong deterrent—the finance director, for example. Of course, the Government do not intend to issue financial penalties that would be disproportionate or unfair on an individual. Indeed, Clause 17 sets out a number of factors that must be considered in determining the amount of a penalty. These include the impact of that penalty on the person in question, the nature and seriousness of the offence, and any past breaches and mitigating or aggravating factors.

Finally, I turn to Amendments 142B and 142C, which seek to restrict the financial penalty that may be imposed for breaches. While the Bill does not limit the financial penalty that can be issued for a breach of the requirements, I hope I have reassured noble Lords that, importantly, we will set the maximum amount in regulations, after we have engaged in full consultation with interested parties to determine the most appropriate maximum for any financial penalties. That will allow us to adjust the maximum amount over time, as necessary, and regulations made will be subject to the affirmative procedure. That will afford Parliament the opportunity to debate and scrutinise the Government’s proposals, and the Government to provide timely answers at that point to issues such as profit levels and operating arrangements, which the noble Baroness identified. Of course, even if a maximum amount is set, that does not necessarily mean that a provider would automatically be fined the maximum amount. As set out in Clause 17, there will be discretion when determining an appropriate amount for any financial penalty.

I hope that that provides more clarification of some of the meanings in this clause, that it responds appropriately to the amendments the noble Baroness has tabled, and that she feels able to withdraw her amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, has the right to reply.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply.

On the point of principle—why you would put a profit cap on one area of the economy where you think there is profiteering on the back of vulnerable children, but not on another—the Minister said that there was no intention to extend this; indeed, she said that she hoped it would not be used. I certainly agree with that, but I do not really understand why, where children have been sexually assaulted or raped and companies are making far higher profit margins than the ones we are talking about here, the Government would choose to apply a profit cap on one and not the other. That does not feel very coherent to me.

I also felt that the Minister was slightly selective in the quotes she chose to identify from the Competition and Markets Authority report. The CMA was clear that it thought that a profit cap was not a good idea. I would also like to clarify something for the record. I think the Minister suggested that I said that current margins were driving supply. I said that current margins, according to the recent data, are uneven and actually falling, so I did not suggest that they were driving supply.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness cited analysis that expressed a concern that by capping profits, you would somehow or other reduce supply in the market. I was simply making the point that the converse—that is, excessive profits—has not driven supply in the market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I urge the Minister to increase the incomes of social workers, so that they are not tempted to become agency workers, who are of course paid a lot more than social workers. The pay levels of these workers need to be addressed.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, through the introduction of a regulation-making power, Clause 19 allow the Government to take stronger action to alleviate the significant affordability and stability challenges that have arisen from the increase in the use and cost of agency workers in local authority children’s social care in England. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, identified some of the progress being made in the staffing of children’s social care. I can confirm that the current level of agency use in the sector stands at 16.2%, a small fall on the previous year, but she is also right, of course, that this varies considerably from authority to authority.

What I would say about that 16.2% is that, in essence, more than one in eight of the people who are working in children’s social care do not have the long-term association with their employers that we would expect to see in any service where we were able to provide the training, the stability and the certainty about future costs that we would want. It is considerably higher than in similar sectors, whether in the health service or in education.

Agency work continues to be a considerable issue within children’s social care. That is not to say that there is not excellent work being carried out by individual agency social workers—I know from my previous experience in Sandwell Children’s Trust that there are many excellent agency workers. Nevertheless, the cost and stability issues that I have outlined remain serious for local authorities and those providing children’s social care. This clause ensures that while agency workers will remain an important part of local authority children’s social care, they will not become a long-term replacement for a permanent, stable workforce. It will allow the Secretary of State to introduce regulations on the use of agency workers in English local authority children’s social care services.

I accept that progress has been made since the introduction by the last Government of the statutory guidance relating to local authority children’s social care services, but that was limited specifically to social workers. We want to extend the framework beyond social workers to the wider local authority children’s social care workforce, including workers such as those delivering early intervention or family help.

A new phenomenon has come into the workforce, and particularly agency provision within children’s social care: that of project teams, where agencies provide not just individual workers but teams to respond to particular challenges. In doing that, partly through the associated management costs and partly through the range of different workers, there are even larger uplifts in the amount of money charged to local authorities. I have seen from personal experience that it is not unusual for social workers and other staff in those teams to be earning £50 an hour or upwards. We may well think that people who are doing this important work are worth £50 an hour, but that is a considerable and, some might argue, unaffordable premium over social workers and other workers who are employed on a permanent basis with teams.

There is a broader range of workers that we should cover here, and a requirement to strengthen some of the principles in the statutory guidance, both by widening it and by this legislative provision. We will of course work in partnership with stakeholders across the system, including agencies, to ensure that the proposals implemented are proportionate and effective. They will make clear to local authorities, the recruitment sector and agency workers what they should expect from one another, and the consistency that this brings to the market will benefit all parties. If we are able by doing this to reduce local authority spend on agency workers, that will allow local authorities to invest more in services supporting children and families and enhance the offer to permanent employees.

I take the broader point that one important way of solving this problem of agency workers is to ensure that those permanently employed, either as social workers or doing other work in children’s social care, get the rewards that they deserve, receive the training that they need in order to get the career satisfaction and progression that they would want, and are employed by local authorities and children’s trusts in ways that value them and provide them with the resources they need. All those things are important, and the Government are addressing them all, but that does not remove the requirement that we believe exists for a stronger ability to make regulations covering children’s social workers and to broaden the scope of those regulations, which is what this clause enables us to do.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her response and her explanation. I think I understand now the scope that the Government intend in terms of the wider social care workforce, although I did not hear her give the Government’s estimate of the number of agency workers involved in that area and the cost to local authorities. Maybe if the department has that data, it could write to us and put a copy of the letter in the Library.

The noble Lord, Lord Storey, rightly raised the issue of social workers retiring and then reappearing, magically, as agency social workers, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, highlighted the impact of that in a court setting, with the obvious cost to the local authority and the disruption and lack of continuity. Given that this builds very much on the statutory guidance that we prepared when in government, we hope that this works really well for the Government in achieving greater affordability and continuity of staff.

I guess we are in a world where the working environment has changed, and social workers can now do a couple of days a week of agency work and work from home the rest of the time. Those are challenges that I am sure the Government are wrestling with, and we wish them every success in so doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, corporate parenting means providing the best possible care, safeguarding and support, ensuring that children thrive and have opportunities to reach their full potential. It involves actively promoting their well-being, health and education, and preparing them for adulthood, mirroring what a responsible parent would do. As such, Amendment 147 seeks to ensure that local authorities must consider the rights of looked-after children to British citizenship, which is exactly what a responsible parent would indeed do. It is important that a local authority is able to focus on the well-being of the child and to consider whether this should apply to citizenship. It is certainly a most relevant issue for the Minister to opine on.

Amendment 152, which seeks to remove Clause 22(1)(a), would extend the local authority duty to take care of looked-after children to the Secretary of State

“exercising immigration, asylum and nationality functions”.

We can see plausible reasons why the Government would choose to include that exemption but it merits further discussion and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to a potentially sensitive and complicated subject.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions in this group, which relates to corporate parenting and, in particular, to immigration functions. I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Lister for introducing her amendments.

Amendment 152 seeks to apply corporate parenting duties to immigration, asylum and nationality functions. As we discussed in the previous group, our new corporate parenting measures will place an important responsibility on each Secretary of State and relevant bodies to support and seek to provide opportunities for looked-after children and care leavers, which in turn will improve their long-term outcomes. This means that Secretaries of State, including the Home Secretary, and relevant public bodies are required to be alert to matters that might negatively affect the well-being of looked-after children and care leavers, regardless of their immigration status, when exercising any functions other than those relating to asylum, immigration, nationality or customs. To be clear, children and young people in the immigration system will absolutely benefit from the additional care and support that new corporate parents will provide. The exemption is to a set of functions, not to a set of children.

This Government recognise the importance of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in the UK. As my noble friend identified, this is already reflected in Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. Section 55 requires the Home Secretary to make arrangements for ensuring that immigration, asylum and nationality functions are discharged

“having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the United Kingdom”.

Statutory guidance linked to this sets out the key principles. This includes that the best interest of the child is a primary consideration when making decisions affecting children. Children should be consulted, and their wishes and feelings taken into account wherever practicable, when decisions affecting them are made. Children should have their applications dealt with in a way that minimises the uncertainty that they may experience. The guidance also emphasises the importance of interagency working.

My noble friend made the point about the requirement to speed up asylum decision-making processes and questioned whether this exclusion would mean that asylum decision-making for these children was not as quick as possible. Applying the duty to the asylum functions of the Home Office would not require it to decide asylum claims for young people in care as soon as possible on its own; that would not be the impact of applying that particular responsibility to this function. The Home Office is committed to ensuring that vulnerable claimants, such as children and care leavers, have their claims decided at the earliest opportunity. However, there are many factors, some beyond the control of the Home Office, that can delay and contribute to the length of time taken to process children’s asylum claims, such as age disputes and the availability of legal representation.

The Home Office works continuously to improve the speed of decision-making—I have to say that, under this Government, it has had some success in doing that—and reduce the number of outstanding claims for children. However, there will always be complex cases, and it is right that the Home Office takes the time to consider those carefully.

Also, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children looked after by local authorities are already subject to the general corporate parenting duties. They will be covered by the specific duties on the local authorities that care for them and by the broader duties this Bill will bring in.

The Government are reflecting on the requirement to support children in gaining certainty about their legal status, in particular in gaining citizenship, and taking further steps to consider looked-after children’s and care leavers’ interests as we reform and manage the immigration system, as set out in the White Paper Restoring Control Over the Immigration System, published on 12 May. That White Paper contained proposals to ensure that children who have been in the UK for some time and who discover, when they turn 18, that they do not have status are fully supported and able to regularise their status and settle. This will include a clear pathway for those looked-after children and care leavers. I hope that responds to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on the previous group. The Home Secretary will set out further details about how progress will be made on that objective.

Amendment 147 also deals with this issue and seeks to ensure that new corporate parents consider the right to British citizenship of looked after children and care leavers, and how that entitlement can be secured to avoid adverse effects on their well-being. Local authorities already follow a separate set of corporate parenting principles, as I have suggested, and are best placed to take steps to consider whether a young person in their care needs support to seek British citizenship.

I know from experience, and from having seen some of the practice, that considerable care is already being taken to ensure that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and other children subject to the immigration system in care are receiving from local authorities the care and attention that they specifically need because of their needs. In fact, I can remember, when I was chairing Sandwell Children’s Trust, being asked to help a social worker assistant who was trying to ensure that two of the children for whom we were responsible were able to get the passports they needed in time to be taken on holiday by the foster parents who were caring for them.

A lot of day-to-day work is going on in this area. As I have already suggested, all that work and support for those children is not exempted by this provision in the Bill; it is only with respect to the functions that I have already talked about. The White Paper that I touched on earlier also sets out the Government’s intent to consider measures to reduce the financial barriers to accessing British nationality for young adults who have lived here through their childhood. The previous Government already removed some fees in those circumstances, back in 2022.

That the Home Secretary is bringing forward proposals in this area I hope makes clear the Government’s commitment to ensuring that children, as we seek to regularise their status in this country, are getting the necessary support, and that it will be improved by this Government. Given the assurances I have provided, I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment on this point.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for her response and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for making the case and reminding us that we are talking about children first. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for what was actually a very sympathetic response to what I said.

I absolutely take the point—I finished with this point—that we are taking about functions and not a group of children. I have not quite finished reading the new study that has just come out, but the trouble is that, in many cases, parts of corporate parenting functions involve asylum and immigration matters, so it is difficult to disentangle the function from the group. I will have to look more closely at what the Minister said, but I have to admit that I am not totally persuaded.

I still do not really understand why it is necessary to have this exclusion. I tabled this amendment on behalf of the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, in which there are a lot of children’s organisations. A lot of the people who are briefing on this Bill—Barnardo’s and many others—welcome the corporate parenting duty and then say, “We must not have this exclusion”. There seems to be a disconnect between their reading, interpretation and understanding of what this will mean and the Government’s. We may have to come back to that—I do not know—but I still do not really understand why it is felt necessary to have this exclusion, which is creating such alarm among children’s organisations.

On children who are entitled to claim British citizenship, I have been working on this issue for many years, pressing the previous Government and finally getting somewhere. That is not just because of me—it is primarily because of the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, which has been indefatigable in pushing on this, together with Amnesty. I welcome what is in the White Paper and look forward to getting more detail about what is meant. Certainly, after the way things were left under the previous Government, it is still difficult—it costs so much to put in that claim. I remember that when we discussed in this House the rules on who can be exempted from having to pay, we were very unhappy about them. It would be excellent if the Government were taking another look at that. The fact is that there are too many children—and my noble friend talked about them after the age of 18. Ideally, local authorities would be more aware of this and would make sure that the claim was made before young people reached the age of 18.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

148: Schedule 1, page 126, line 2, after “board” insert “established under section 14Z25 of the National Health Service Act 2006”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the entry in Schedule 1 relating to integrated care boards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I just remind the Committee that, 12 or 13 years ago, when we were looking at the Children and Families Bill, my noble friend Lady Benjamin took up this issue with great vigour, and quite rightly so. Since then, of course, times have changed, as traditional child employment laws have often failed to address online influencer work, digital content creation and remote gig roles taken up by children.

My own experience as a head teacher at a primary school was that I had a number of such children. I remember Josh Bolt, who appeared regularly as a main character in “Last Tango in Halifax”, and the problems that we faced trying to ensure that he could fulfil his acting potential. He was able to do so, and appeared in the film “Nowhere Boy”, about the life of John Lennon. But it was us bending the rules, quite frankly, and not following the exact letter of the law, which allowed him to fulfil his dreams and ambitions. There were other children as well; I think of sports and those children, both boys and girls, who went to football academies, for example. A number of them went on to have successful careers in sport.

So we must make laws that not only protect the young person but work for the young person as well, enabling them to enhance their skills and take up the opportunities that are available. According to the Education Policy Institute, part-time jobs can support resilience, time management and confidence. But, of course, unregulated work can harm education as well; it is about getting the balance right.

I am looking forward to discussing the amendments on school registration. Some schools can be overzealous on registration and do not take personal factors into account. It is really important that we listen to my noble friend Lady Benjamin, in particular; she has huge experience in this area. If we want to be a successful nation in the cultural industries, which we are, little hiccups such as this need sorting out.

One noble Lord mentioned that there are discrepancies between England, Wales and Scotland in child labour and performance law, and that creates confusion and enforcement challenges. While performance licences require education provision, oversight is inconsistent and, as I have been saying, schools sometimes incorrectly mark children absent when, in fact, that should not be the case. I am sure that the Government will want to listen to what is being said and to make this work for families and children.

I was particularly taken, as it had not occurred to me until I read the amendment, by the point that my noble friend raised at the very beginning about how these earnings should be, if you like, looked after for the future. That is a really important point.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased that we have been able to have a wide debate on the measures in the Bill that relate to child employment. I am sure many noble Lords agree that employment can have a hugely beneficial impact on a child: it can contribute to their development, introduce them to the world of work and help them develop key life skills. However, current legislation needs to be updated to better reflect the world of employment today and to make things simpler and clearer for children, families and employers.

I should perhaps be clear at this point that, in this group of amendments, we are talking about two different sets of regulations. We have heard, and I will come to, the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser—by the way, both of them demonstrate the benefits of being a performer, child or otherwise. To be clear, these are two completely different sets of regulations. To respond to the specific point, the changes made in the employment regulations do not impact on the ability of children to be performers.

I speak first to the government amendments in this group, which include Amendments 157 and 158 and consequential Amendments 503, 506, 507 and 510 to 514. These amendments seek to bring these changes in employment regulations to children in Scotland and Wales too. Our aim is that all children, regardless of where they live, can benefit from these new employment opportunities. These amendments will ensure that children in Wales and Scotland, as well as children in England, will be able to take advantage of the greater flexibility that this clause allows. This means being able to work more hours on a Sunday, an hour before school, and until 8 pm—crucially, without increasing their overall weekly working hours. This is to ensure that employment does not negatively impact on their health, development and education.

We have also made a small amendment to the definition of “light work” so that it better reflects the circumstances of children who are educated at home, not just those who attend school. I will try to come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. The new definition of light work is probably more appropriate at this time, when children’s work is not necessarily going to be about only the physical efforts that they are engaged in but other elements of that work which could have an impact on their health, development and education. Overall, this increased flexibility will ensure that a child can, if they want to, benefit from the positive impacts we know that the world of work can bring, and we will have a more consistent approach across Great Britain. In doing that, we will be allowing all children to benefit from the same employment opportunities. I hope noble Lords will feel able to support these government amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

157: Leave out Clause 26 and insert the following new Clause—
“Employment of children in England and Wales(1) The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 is amended as follows.(2) For section 18 substitute—“18 Restrictions on employment of children(1) A child may not be employed to work—(a) so long as the child is under the age of 14 (subject to regulations under subsection (2));(b) to do any work other than light work;(c) to do work of a description specified in regulations made by the appropriate national authority;(d) before 7.00 a.m. or after 8.00 p.m. on any day;(e) on any day on which the child is required to attend school—(i) for more than one hour before the start of school hours,(ii) during school hours, or(iii) for more than two hours in total in the day;(f) for more than 12 hours in any week in which the child is required to attend school;(g) for more than eight hours or, if the child is under 15, for more than five hours in any day on which the child is not required to attend school;(h) for more than 35 hours or, if the child is under 15, for more than 25 hours in any week in which the child is not required to attend school;(i) for more than four hours in any day without a break of one hour;(j) at any time in a year unless at that time a person employing the child is satisfied that the child has had, or could still have, a period of at least two consecutive weeks without employment during a period in the year in which the child is not required to attend school.(2) The appropriate national authority may by regulations authorise the employment of children aged 13 to do specified descriptions of light work.(3) A child may not be employed to work except in accordance with a permit (a “child employment permit”) granted by a local authority on an application made in accordance with regulations made by the appropriate national authority.(4) The appropriate national authority may by regulations—(a) make provision in relation to child employment permits;(b) provide that subsection (3) does not apply in specified cases or circumstances;(c) make provision about the keeping of records.(5) The provision that may be made in reliance on subsection (4)(a) includes provision—(a) authorising a local authority to request such information as the authority considers appropriate, or to require a child to have a medical examination, for the purpose of enabling the authority to determine an application;(b) requiring a local authority to have regard to specified matters when determining an application;(c) for the grant of a child employment permit subject to conditions determined by a local authority; (d) requiring a child employment permit to contain specified information;(e) authorising a local authority to vary, suspend or revoke a child employment permit in specified circumstances;(f) about appeals against—(i) a decision to reject an application, or(ii) the revocation of a child employment permit;(g) imposing requirements on persons employing children (including requirements to produce child employment permits for inspection);(h) requiring or authorising a local authority, in specified circumstances, to disclose information about a child employment permit to another local authority in England or Wales or to a local authority in Scotland.(6) The appropriate national authority may by regulations make provision (subject to subsection (1) and regulations under subsection (2))—(a) specifying the number of hours in each day, or in each week, for which children may be employed, and the times of day at which they may be employed;(b) specifying the intervals to be allowed to children for meals and breaks, when in employment;(c) about entitlement to leave;(d) specifying other conditions to be met in relation to the employment of children.(7) Nothing in this section, or in regulations made under any provision of this section, prevents a child from doing anything—(a) under the authority of a licence granted under this Part, or(b) in a case where by virtue of subsection (3) of section 37 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 no licence under that section is required for the child to do it.(8) In this section—“appropriate national authority” means—(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State;(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers;“light work” means work which, on account of the inherent nature of the tasks which it involves and the particular conditions under which they are performed—(a) is not likely to be harmful to the safety, health or development of children, and(b) is not such as to be harmful to their education (through attendance at school or otherwise) as required by section 7 of the Education Act 1996 or to their participation in work experience in accordance with section 560 of that Act, or their capacity to benefit from the education received or the experience gained (as the case may be);“local authority in Scotland” means a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994;“specified” , in relation to regulations made under any provision of this section, means specified in the regulations;“week” means any period of seven consecutive days;“year” means a period of 12 months beginning with 1 January.18A Regulations under section 18: further provision(1) Regulations under section 18 may—(a) make different provision for different purposes or areas;(b) make provision subject to exceptions; (c) make transitional or saving provision.(2) Except as provided by subsection (3), regulations under section 18 may provide for the processing of information in accordance with the regulations not to be in breach of—(a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person processing the information, or(b) any other restriction on the processing of information (however imposed).(3) Regulations under section 18 are not to be read as requiring or authorising the processing of information that would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether particular processing of data would do so, take into account the duty imposed or power conferred by the provision of the regulations in question).(4) Regulations under section 18 are to be made by statutory instrument.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 18 is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Welsh Ministers under section 18 is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of Senedd Cymru.(7) In this section“the data protection legislation” and“processing” have the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).”(3) In section 21 (penalties and legal proceedings in respect of general provisions as to employment), in subsection (1), after “byelaw” insert “or regulations”.(4) In section 28 (powers of entry), in subsection (1), after “byelaw” insert “or regulations”.(5) In section 30 (interpretation), in subsection (1), after “byelaws” insert “or regulations”.(6) In Schedule 36A to the Education Act 1996, in the table, omit the entry for section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (including the title of that Act).(7) In Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Local Government Byelaws (Wales) Act 2012 (anaw 2), in the table, in the English language and Welsh language texts, omit the entry that relates to byelaws made under section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (referred to as “adran 18 o Ddeddf Plant a Phobl Ifanc 1933” in the Welsh language text).”Member’s explanatory statement
Clause 26 makes provision for England restricting employed work by children. This amendment replaces that clause to extend the application of that provision to Wales. It also includes a change to the definition of “light work” in the inserted section 18(8) to reflect that children may receive their compulsory education outside of school.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

158: After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause—
“Employment of children in Scotland(1) The Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 is amended as follows.(2) For section 28 substitute—“28 Restrictions on employment of children(1) A child may not be employed to work— (a) so long as the child is under the age of 14 (subject to regulations under subsection (2));(b) to do any work other than light work;(c) to do work of a description specified in regulations made by the Scottish Ministers;(d) before 7.00 a.m. or after 8.00 p.m. on any day;(e) on any day on which the child is required to attend school—(i) for more than one hour before the start of school hours,(ii) during school hours, or(iii) for more than two hours in total in the day;(f) for more than 12 hours in any week in which the child is required to attend school;(g) for more than eight hours or, if the child is under 15, for more than five hours in any day on which the child is not required to attend school;(h) for more than 35 hours or, if the child is under 15, for more than 25 hours in any week in which the child is not required to attend school;(i) for more than four hours in any day without a break of one hour;(j) at any time in a year unless at that time a person employing the child is satisfied that the child has had, or could still have, a period of at least two consecutive weeks without employment during a period in the year in which the child is not required to attend school.(2) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations authorise the employment of children aged 13 to do specified descriptions of light work.(3) A child may not be employed to work except in accordance with a permit (a “child employment permit”) granted by a local authority on an application made in accordance with regulations made by the Scottish Ministers.(4) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations—(a) make provision in relation to child employment permits;(b) provide that subsection (3) does not apply in specified cases or circumstances;(c) make provision about the keeping of records.(5) The provision that may be made in reliance on subsection (4)(a) includes provision—(a) authorising a local authority to request such information as the authority considers appropriate, or to require a child to have a medical examination, for the purpose of enabling the authority to determine an application;(b) requiring a local authority to have regard to specified matters when determining an application;(c) for the grant of a child employment permit subject to conditions determined by a local authority;(d) requiring a child employment permit to contain specified information;(e) authorising a local authority to vary, suspend or revoke a child employment permit in specified circumstances;(f) about appeals against—(i) a decision to reject an application, or(ii) the revocation of a child employment permit;(g) imposing requirements on persons employing children (including requirements to produce child employment permits for inspection); (h) requiring or authorising a local authority, in specified circumstances, to disclose information about a child employment permit to another local authority in Scotland, to a local authority in England or to a local authority in Wales.(6) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make provision (subject to subsection (1) and regulations under subsection (2))—(a) specifying the number of hours in each day, or in each week, for which children may be employed, and the times of day at which they may be employed;(b) specifying the intervals to be allowed to children for meals and breaks, when in employment;(c) about entitlement to leave;(d) specifying other conditions to be met in relation to the employment of children.(7) Nothing in this section, or in regulations made under any provision of this section, prevents a child from doing anything—(a) under the authority of a licence granted under this Part, or(b) in a case where by virtue of subsection (3) of section 37 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 no licence under that section is required for the child to do it.(8) In this section—“light work” means work which, on account of the inherent nature of the tasks which it involves and the particular conditions under which they are performed—(a) is not likely to be harmful to the safety, health or development of children, and(b) is not such as to be harmful to their education (through attendance at school or otherwise) as required by section 30 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 or to their participation in work experience in accordance with section 123 of that Act, or their capacity to benefit from the education received or the experience gained (as the case may be);“local authority in England” and“local authority in Wales” have the same meaning as in the Education Act 1996 (see section 579(1) of that Act);“specified” , in relation to regulations made under any provision of this section, means specified in the regulations;“week” means any period of seven consecutive days;“year” means a period of 12 months beginning with 1 January.28A Regulations under section 28: further provision(1) Regulations under section 28 may—(a) make different provision for different purposes or areas;(b) make provision subject to exceptions;(c) make transitional or saving provision.(2) Except as provided by subsection (3), regulations under section 28 may provide for the processing of information in accordance with the regulations not to be in breach of—(a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person processing the information, or(b) any other restriction on the processing of information (however imposed).(3) Regulations under section 28 are not to be read as requiring or authorising the processing of information that would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether particular processing of data would do so, take into account the duty imposed or power conferred by the provision of the regulations in question).(4) Regulations under section 28 are subject to the negative procedure (see Part 2 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10)).(5) In this section“the data protection legislation” and“processing” have the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).”(3) In section 31 (penalties and legal proceedings in respect of general provisions as to employment), in subsection (1), after “byelaw” insert “or regulations”.(4) In section 35 (confirmation of byelaws), in subsection (1), for “Secretary of State” substitute “Scottish Ministers”.(5) In section 36 (powers of entry), in subsection (1), after “byelaw” insert “or regulations”.(6) In section 37 (interpretation), after “byelaws” insert “or regulations”.(7) In section 38 (savings)—(a) omit subsection (3);(b) in subsection (4), for “The said provisions” substitute “The provisions of this Part relating to employment”.(8) In section 110(1) (interpretation), omit the definitions of “borstal institution” and “residential establishment”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This clause makes equivalent provision for Scotland to that made for England and Wales by my amendment to replace clause 26.

--- Later in debate ---

The Committee is aware of the concerns I expressed when we were debating Clause 3 of the Bill, about the risk that this approach could create confusion for families between situations where they are being advised to take a particular action and those where a child has a child in need plan and the family is required to take a particular action. Having looked again at the legislation as currently written in Section 17 of the Children Act, I think it brings both clarity and discretion to local authorities and strikes the right balance. The question then is, where that is not delivered in practice, how do we deal with that and create the right kind of accountability to make sure that children are kept safe? I look forward very much to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, this Government are committed to protecting children from serious harm and ensuring that they can access the right level of support at the right time. That is what the amendments in this group seek, rightly, to pursue and challenge on.

Amendment 159, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, is on the establishment of a child protection authority, as recommended in the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. Just to be clear, this Government have made a series of announcements that demonstrate our commitment to strengthen the response to child sexual abuse and exploitation. Establishing a child protection authority was one that we have, in looking at the recommendations from IICSA, committed quite clearly to. I was a bit unclear about the charge made by the noble Lord that we had not accepted that recommendation. In the Government’s update on our work to tackle child sexual abuse, published in April, we announced that we would establish a child protection authority in England. As the noble Lord says, this will help to make the child protection system clearer and more unified and ensure ongoing improvement through effective support for practitioners.

Of course, there will be lots of questions about what form the authority takes and its scope—some were raised today by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, with specific questions on safeguarding. I reassure the noble Baroness that we have absolutely aligned the work on the CPA with the out-of-school settings call for evidence that she referenced. She identified that the design and the delivery of the authority require consultation, including with child protection experts and victim groups to ensure that it has the right constitution and the right powers. We have already begun our work towards a consultation on the child protection authority, and I assure the noble Baroness that we will engage with key stakeholders as part of this process. We will consult on developing the new child protection authority this year, and the consultation will set out in more detail the proposed roles, responsibilities and powers of the authority.

However, we do not want to wait until we are able to set up the child protection authority in full to take action—there has arguably been too long a delay in acting on the recommendations of IICSA—so we have also already begun to strengthen the national Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel on some of the key aspects IICSA envisaged for the child protection authority. In 2025-26, we are increasing the resources at the panel’s disposal so that it can increase its analytical capacity and its ability to develop high-quality material for practitioners.

That is part of the overall action that this Government are taking: the strongest possible action to tackle child sexual exploitation, including immediate action to take forward all 12 of the recommendations for change from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, which were published in her audit just this week. That includes setting up a new national inquiry, with which government departments will co-operate fully to make sure we are tackling this vile crime and supporting victims and survivors. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, also recommended that the mandatory sharing of information be enforced between all statutory safeguarding partners in cases of child sexual abuse and exploitation. The child protection authority will play a critical role in addressing this recommendation through national oversight of the child protection system and supporting the co-ordination between agencies. Of course, provisions within this legislation are already taking forward other elements of the IICSA recommendations.

Amendment 160, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, aims to reduce regional variations in the type, frequency and duration of support that children receive under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, which, of course, places a general duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of any child in need by providing appropriate support and services. Here, I fear that I disagree with the noble Lord’s analysis. Prescriptive national criteria with automatic referrals would risk narrowing the cohort of children and limiting local flexibility in providing support. Section 17 rightly allows local authorities discretion to provide support and services based on local need and resources. On this at least—and on other things as well—the noble Baroness, Lady Barran and I are in agreement. A danger of being specific in the way suggested is that groups are left out, narrowing the cohort who receive support—exactly, in fact, what the amendment is seeking to avoid.

It is not the case, as the noble Lord suggested, that there is no national guidance. There has recently been strengthening of the statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, to make it explicit that local authorities and safeguarding partners should publish a threshold document for statutory services under Section 17 so that there is clarity for those working within an authority area about what that threshold would be and what action they should take. Furthermore, Ofsted inspects whether these local thresholds are set appropriately.

Working Together is clear that plans setting out support and services for children should be reviewed regularly against progress. All this comes within the broader context of our reforms to family help and multiagency child protection, which we have talked about at some length in earlier proceedings on the Bill and in Committee—reforms precisely aimed at supporting provision at an earlier stage for identifying children who will need support and wrapping that around them, and reforms backed by over £500 million of investment in this financial year and supported by additional investment made available in last week’s spending review for future years. These will provide help for families at the point of need and decisive action when protection is needed.

While I accept that the noble Lord raised important issues about the current working of the system and the need to develop the child protection authority for all the reasons that he spelt out, I hope that I have addressed some of his concerns and reassured noble Lords that this Government are committed to protecting children from significant harm, providing the right support at the right time and, ultimately, improving outcomes so that all children can thrive. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Berridge and Lady Barran, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for their interventions and comments, some of which I agree with and some I may not agree with—but that is the nature of the Committee; we are here to debate and improve Bills that come forward from the Government. I welcome the comments from the Minister, particularly on the national protection agency. Clearly, the devil will be in the detail about its powers and how it functions, rather than just establishing the authority.

On Amendment 160, I clearly still have issues with the disparity between some local authorities having up to 60% of young people in their care with child in need plans and others having 20%, as in the examples I gave. My aim was to raise this in Committee and hopefully for the Minister to look into it. I will continue to press and probe as this Bill travels through your Lordships’ House but, on this occasion, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

This is such an important group of amendments. We thank all noble Lords for their contributions and look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, we know—and it has been expressed several times in this very wide-ranging debate this afternoon—that too many children are not getting the nutrition that they need to thrive at school. We know that hunger affects concentration, behaviour and learning, yet many pupils arrive at school without breakfast. Many schools excel in meeting the nutritional standards expected of their food offer, but some fall short. We also know that excellent schemes such as Healthy Start remain underused, not because families do not need the help but because they are not aware of it.

Clauses 27 and 28 seek to close the gap between intention and implementation. Together, they aim to ensure that no child is too hungry to learn and that our school food system works fairly and consistently for all.

Amendments in group 7 cover a wide range of areas, from breakfast clubs, school food standards, the Healthy Start scheme and the holiday activities and food programme, and I will respond to all those amendments. To begin with the point about breakfast clubs, the delivery of breakfast clubs is a government manifesto commitment. We have committed to introduce free breakfast clubs in every state-funded primary school. Of course, I accept that, for very many years, including when I was last in the Department for Education, there have been schools that have offered support for breakfast, or breakfast clubs, in a whole variety of ways in order to support children.

However, what there has never been is a consistent entitlement to that opportunity which is universally available for all children and free. That is what this legislation aims to promote. It places a duty on state-funded schools providing primary education to make accessible a free breakfast club lasting at least 30 minutes before the school day, for every pupil from reception to year 6, helping them start the day ready to learn. This is of course about food, but it is not only about food. Free breakfast clubs will mean that every primary school child, no matter their circumstances, is well prepared to learn. It is good for attendance, behaviour and attainment, and it will also support parents to have more choice on when to work and will support families with the cost of childcare.

Amendments 183D, 186 and 186A, in the names of my noble friend Lord Watson and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, rightly concern access to breakfast clubs for children with special educational needs and disabilities of all ages in special schools, and access for children receiving education otherwise than at school.

My noble friend, the noble Lord and others have made a very fair point about the unique challenges for special schools in delivering breakfast clubs. It is categorically the aim of the Government to design this scheme to be inclusive. We all know that the landscape across SEND is extremely complex, particularly given that needs and abilities can vary significantly across age groups.

I also accept the important points made by noble Lords about the challenge of transporting children to school and the challenges of the additional support necessary for some children. We are convinced of the benefits of a breakfast club and we want to start by giving the youngest pupils, regardless of their circumstances, a great start to the school day.

However, we are not hiding from the fact that there will be challenges in doing that. That is why we are working with our early adopters—of which there are 750, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Storey. They include special schools and mainstream schools with pupils with SEND. The aim of this scheme is to test what works, where there are difficulties and how the policy can best be implemented.

Amendments 185 and 185A, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Moynihan, seek to extend the definition of breakfast club provision to include physical enrichment, art and cultural, and youth mentoring activities. Amendments 187 and 187B, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seek to promote alternative forms of breakfast provision, alongside publishing an impact assessment. I absolutely assure your Lordships that I agree that sporting and enriching activities offer fantastic benefits to pupils’ health and well-being.

I am enormously delighted that I can respond to the challenge of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, about the Government’s commitment by pointing him to the Prime Minister’s announcement today, while visiting the Lionesses to offer them support in the forthcoming Euros tournament. He announced a new approach to school sport, with new school sport partnerships bringing together schools, local authorities, local sports clubs and national governing bodies, and a new enrichment framework for schools to ensure that all young people have equal access to high-quality sport and extracurricular activity. The new approach includes aims for minimum teaching times for PE, and for girls to be given the same opportunity as boys to play sport at school, as well as equal access for those with special needs and disabilities. I think that is an important announcement, and I hope that noble Lords will look further at what the Prime Minister has announced today, as well as offering their support to the Lionesses in advance of the Euros.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I appreciate the detail that the Minister has gone into and that further information about the national rollout will happen in due course, but we have just had the comprehensive spending review, so can I ask whether the funding for the national rollout is included within the DfE’s settlement from the comprehensive spending review or whether there will be additional funding on top of that settlement to fund the national rollout? I am not asking how it will work but whether it is in the CSR settlement or whether there will be more, in addition, at a later point.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

What we have announced as part of the spending review settlement is separate to the funding for the national rollout, about which we will bring forward information.

On Amendment 505B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, early adopters are key to ensuring that we get implementation right before national rollout. This learning will help develop our statutory guidance. More information will be made available, including on the exemptions process, to Parliament and in the public domain.

On that exemptions power, in relation to Amendments 186B and 186C, I understand that there may be extreme and, critically, individual circumstances that could prevent individual schools meeting their duties to provide breakfast clubs. The exemption power is designed to address this on a case-by-case basis. That is why schools would be expected to apply and to be able to demonstrate their exemption eligibility under one of the criteria set out in the legislation. Our expectation is that any school seeking an exemption will actively engage with its school community, the local authority and the department to ensure that it has done all it can to meet its breakfast club duty.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt. It may be me—I may have missed it, as it getting to the end of the week—but I am not sure that my noble friend responded to Amendment 187 with the Government’s position on the mixed models. I know she talked a lot about physical activity and so forth. If she did say, can she repeat it? There is quite a lot that she is having to cram together into different slots, and I do not think there was anything explicit about the mixed model promoted by Amendment 187.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The point I made was that I and the Government disagree with my noble friend that there should be a sort of all-flowers-blooming approach to breakfast clubs. I set out the reason why the Government believe there should be a basic set of conditions and criteria for breakfast clubs. Of course, it is completely possible that schools may well then decide to put on other provision alongside the basic provision laid out in the criteria set out for breakfast clubs in legislation—this is one of the things that we will look at in the early adopters scheme—but the Government are not favouring the idea that there would be a variety of different routes. That is because of the points I made about this being about the provision not just of food but of the club and of the 30 minutes of childcare. Those things are quite an important basis of what is being delivered through the breakfast club programme.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I just have one more question for the Minister before we move on from breakfast clubs. I really appreciate what she said about the pathfinder schools being used to understand how, for example, the very clear provision that the Government want would work alongside existing provision or extended provision and to learn from that. Can the Minister commit to publishing the findings of those pathfinder schools and that initial work and laying those findings before the House before we consider the regulations that would come subsequent to this legislation, so that we can see and fully understand what has been learned and taken on from those initial 750 schools when moving to a national rollout?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I have already made clear that monitoring and evaluation are a fundamental part of the early adopters scheme. That will not only enable us to work out how to develop the scheme further in terms of a national rollout but allow noble Lords and others to analyse the extent to which the model is working and what some of the challenges may be around issues raised by noble Lords this afternoon.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

To be really specific, will the outcomes of that monitoring and evaluation be made available before the regulations are laid to implement breakfast clubs nationally? That is my question. If the Minister’s answer is no, that is fine. Maybe she has been clear, but I would hope it would be yes—that is what I would like to know.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

What I have been absolutely clear about is that the point of the early adopters scheme is to enable us to design the national rollout. If the noble Baroness wants me to commit to bringing back further information to the House, I am of course willing to do that. My point is that the information will in fact be much more widely available in terms of all of the issues that have been raised by noble Lords. I thought that I have been pretty clear about that.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the statement that was made by the Prime Minister earlier this afternoon, which is very welcome. It is very similar to a proposal made by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, which, sadly, did not happen, in the build-up to the London 2012 Games. One reason why it faltered was because the cost associated with delivering those objectives was very high indeed. I happen to believe it was well worth the budget. Can the Minister confirm whether the costs associated with what has been announced this afternoon will be covered by her departmental budget, or are they coming from elsewhere in government?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

No, I am not going to go into those details, and neither would the noble Lord expect me to. He challenged me about whether any announcements had been made, and I pointed him to one made today. I will just point out, however, that the reason why the plans outlined by Prime Minister Gordon Brown did not come to fruition was because, of course, after 2010, Gordon Brown was not the Prime Minister anymore and those who were did not choose to take forward those plans. That is why we have had to wait until this point, under a Labour Government, for another commitment to the sort of sporting entitlement that he asked about earlier.

To move on from breakfast clubs, I turn to Amendments 190 and 194 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Boycott, which seek to establish a school food improvement scheme and to update the school food standards. I recognise the importance of these reforms and the vital work that noble Lords have done to raise the profile of school food policy. That is why I am pleased that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was able to announce in the other place, on 5 June, that we are working with stakeholders and experts from across the sector to revise those standards, to ensure that they support our work to create the healthiest generation of children in history. We will share further details on this consultation in due course. I invite noble Lords to engage on this, including on the important question of how we can ensure that schools comply with the updated school food standards. I am sure that that will build on the work already done by the compliance pilot and by the work done to support governors to challenge and assure the quality of food that is being offered in their schools.

There were several questions raised relating to free school meals and entitlement. We will of course have the opportunity to return to those and to deal with them when we come to the group that is specifically about free school meals. That is why I am not covering them now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

Very briefly, I support my noble friend Lord Hampton in saying that education is fundamental here. You do not resolve poverty unless a child is put through education successfully. Therefore, my plea is that the main message from this debate should be that local authorities should prioritise promoting education for children in poverty. That is actually the way to a successful resolution of this problem.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for the clarification at the end of her comments.

Amendment 163 has enabled us to have a very good debate about the importance of making progress on child poverty. I agree fully with the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and my noble friend Lady Lister for ambition on reducing child poverty. The success of the last Labour Government in tackling child poverty is the legacy that we are aiming to build on in this one. We want to see an enduring reduction in child poverty over this Parliament as part of a long-term, 10-year strategy for lasting change. The child poverty strategy, which we will publish in the autumn, will set out the Government’s strong commitment to this and, importantly, how we plan to achieve this reduction. The strategy will tackle overall child poverty as well as going beyond that to focus on the children in the deepest poverty, lacking essentials and what is needed to give every child the best start in life.

I very strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bird, that this is a multifaceted problem. Several noble Lords have identified particular issues that are likely to benefit children. I agree that education, and particularly recognition of the need for education for disadvantaged children, which is also a key theme for this Government, is an important part of that, but there are in fact a complex and interrelated range of issues that lead to child poverty and that can help to alleviate it.

We have already started to take substantive action across major drivers of child poverty through the spending review 2025. This includes: an expansion of free school meals, which will lift 100,000 children out of poverty by the end of the Parliament; establishing a long-term crisis and resilience fund, supported by £1 billion a year; investing in local family support services; and extending the £3 bus fare cap. We have also announced the biggest boost to social and affordable housing investment in a generation and £13.2 billion across the Parliament for the warm homes plan.

Our commitments at the 2025 spending review come on top of the existing action we are taking, which includes expanding free breakfast clubs, as we talked about today; capping the number of branded school uniform items that children are expected to wear, which I think we will talk about on Monday; increasing the national minimum wage for those on the lowest incomes; and supporting 700,000 of the poorest families by introducing a fair repayment rate on universal credit deductions. The Child Poverty Taskforce will continue to explore all available levers to drive forward short and long-term action across government to reduce child poverty. The strategy will look at levers across four key themes: increasing incomes, reducing essential costs, increasing financial resilience and better local support, especially in the early years. This will build on the reform plans under way across government and work under way in devolved Governments.

We agree that timely reporting is important in monitoring progress. The Government already have a statutory duty to publish poverty statistics annually. In addition, in the autumn we will set out the monitoring and evaluation arrangements we will put in place for our strategy for this year and future years, so that the progress we make is transparent for all. I very much take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, made about accountability, both to this House and more broadly, for making progress on the strategy, but our view is that statutory targets for child poverty would not in themselves drive reductions in poverty. They can be reversed, and have been in the past, so do not serve as an effective means of binding government to a specific course of action. As my noble friend referenced—although only to say that she did not agree with it—they also risk adversely narrowing the focus of effort to moving the children closest to the poverty line over it, rather than the direct and comprehensive approach that we will take to helping children in relative and deep poverty across the United Kingdom.

I cannot help but add that noble Lords have come up with all sorts of reasons as to why things might have changed in 2010, but my view is that the defining issue in whether children get out of poverty is not whether targets are set but the nature of the Government at the time. The last Labour Government saw reductions in child poverty; this Labour Government are committed to achieving that as well. I hope that provides assurance to noble Lords.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I have a last point to make. I am obviously disappointed by my noble friend’s response on targets, but she talked about monitoring and accountability. One of the really good things about the way the Child Poverty Taskforce has gone about its work has been the way it has engaged with—and listened to—both parents and children with experience of poverty. One recommendation made by a lot of people in the sector is that this engagement with those who have experience of poverty should continue as part of the monitoring and accountability mechanism. I just wanted to throw that into the pot.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for recognising the enormously broad way in which the Child Poverty Taskforce has undertaken its work, under the leadership of my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Education and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. It has been about looking at the whole breadth of actions that this Government can take, and engaging with those who have the most experience of what it means to be poor, as well as others who represent them. I hope and believe that broad approach and the commitment of this Labour Government will make the real impact to children that we all seek.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her assessment, but I do not agree. It is interesting that, when she outlined how she will tackle poverty, she mentioned school uniforms, breakfast clubs and social housing. I have an opinion, which I expressed earlier; I think that food clubs are a response to the fact that the horse has bolted and we are chasing it down the hill. The same goes for uniforms: they are not necessarily methodologies to dismantle poverty.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Does the noble Lord accept that I was not making that argument? What I was actually arguing—in agreement with him—is that we need a multifaceted approach and that we need to look at the causes for people ending up in poverty. Taking action to reduce the costs for families around the country—the costs he has just referenced—is an important thing that the Government can do, alongside the more strategic, detailed and cross-cutting work that the child poverty task force is also doing.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

I agree with the Minister 100%. We should never, ever abandon people who are in an emergency. But, if that is what we are doing, and if that is what most of our efforts go into, we will never come to the day when we dismantle poverty.

My problem—I have talked about this on a number of occasions in the House—is around social housing. I had an argument with a leading Member of this House, who was in social housing for many decades. I made the point to him, “Isn’t it interesting and damning that, if you give somebody social housing in current times, there’s a distinct possibility that their children and their children’s children—and, probably, their children’s grandchildren—will live in poverty?” Because social housing produces only in the region of 2%, 3% or 4% of the social mobility of finishing your levels and getting into university or an apprenticeship. Social housing is not a route out of poverty; it is, in a way, a stumbling block.

We will not move forward until we revolutionise social housing and go back to the kind of social housing that I had when we moved from the slums of Notting Hill and into a Catholic orphanage. We then left that and went into social housing in Fulham, where we had sociable housing: the people there included police officers and a trainee teacher. I have talked about this on countless occasions. We had our first parking warden; we did know what to do with him, because most of us did not have a car. The point is that there was a social element, including the disabled and the old. The problem is that, because social housing has lost its sociability and has become a place of refuge and deep need—which we cannot turn against—we have people who remain for ever in an emergency.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Hampton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, because they argued for targets far more eloquently than me—this is my first amendment, so I am getting used to it and learning on the job. The point is that targets will get us thinking about those kinds of levels. What do we have to do next to get people out of poverty? We have to go beyond the food, the uniforms and the social housing. We have to get to the enemies of the people who pass through poverty, because they are “mind-forg’d manacles”.

I am not decrying this, but I had an argument a few years ago when they were saying, “Why don’t we list all the ingredients that go into a Mars bar, a KitKat, a Twix or a bottle of Coca-Cola?”, so that people would read them and say, “I’m not going to eat that”. The “mind-forg’d manacles” of poverty mean that you will go for the Coca-Cola whether or not it is good for you. These are the things that we need to do to dismantle poverty. One of the simplest ways is to concentrate the Government by bringing in all the philosophical, intellectual, cultural and social reasons why people are caught in poverty.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 23rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

These amendments work together: the early years campaign and guidance create the foundation for healthy childhoods; the social media age verification prevents the most harmful platforms exploiting vulnerable adolescents; and the school’s smartphone ban provides the daily structure necessary for academic success and social development. Together, they would shift the social norms around the healthy use of technology by children and by society more broadly. We owe our children nothing less than to act, and to act now.

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

My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging debate. As we begin, it is probably worth while identifying that the amendments fall into three related but distinct areas: the use of and regulation of social media, the impacts of screen time, and the proposals for the use of mobile phones in schools. I will respond to the specifics of the amendments. There were times during the debate when, while I recognise the linkages between them, those issues were conflated, which will not necessarily help us to develop clear policy.

In starting, I wholeheartedly agree with noble Lords that parenting is hard. It was before mobile phones, but the point about the ubiquity of screens made by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, makes this even more significant. We are talking about long-standing issues for young people around behaviour, cognitive development, bullying, lack of exercise, mental health, extremism and radicalisation, and crime. I accept some of the arguments about that, but I say in response to my noble friend Lady Morris that, if I remember rightly, these were all issues we were exercised about when we were in the now Department for Education before the era of mobile phones.

That is to say not that this is not a serious issue, but that there is rarely one easy solution to these problems. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and my noble friends Lord Knight and Lady Morris that straightforward bans are rarely the solution. I emphasise in responding to these amendments that we need a multifaceted policy response, and that is what the Government are pursuing. We will continue to do what is needed to keep children safe online and when using devices with screens.

We recently published our response to the Education Select Committee report on screen time, which further sets out the Government’s positions on these issues. It is not in fact true that the Government are not doing anything on this whole range of areas—and that goes for the previous Government as well as this one.

Amendment 177 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, would require the Government to introduce regulations about social media access for under-16 year-olds and to commission advice for parents. I am surprised that we have had just one mention of the Online Safety Act in this debate. That Act is the first step in delivering a more positive, safer online environment for children where they are protected from online harms. As of March this year, the Act’s illegal content duties are in force, meaning that children are already protected from illegal content and criminal activity. Additionally, as of April, Ofcom published its draft child safety codes, which have been laid before Parliament. Subject to passing parliamentary scrutiny, they are expected to be in force next month. Services will shortly be required to put in place measures to mitigate risks they have identified, in order to protect children from harm once the codes are in force.

This is not to say—my noble friend Lord Knight was the one person who mentioned the Act—that there will not be a need for us to scrutinise this carefully in the future and to take further action. But it is right that we focus on what this House and the other House considered during the passage of the Online Safety Act, as a first step.

There has also been important debate about where the evidence leads us. There is certainly an enormous amount of evidence in this area but, overall, the scientific evidence on the impacts of social media and screen time on children and young people is mixed, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, says. There is no clear scientific consensus on a negative impact from screen time and social media use on the mental health and neurological or functional development of children and young people. There is a large amount of discussion in this area whereby correlation is confused with causality, but that brings upon government a responsibility to build the evidence base, which is what we are doing. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is commissioning a systematic review to understand the impact of smartphones and social media on children’s well-being, which is being led by the University of Cambridge and a wider consortium of experts and academics. The Government will publish the results of that in due course.

We are also monitoring and learning from wider developments internationally, including in Australia, to share evidence and learn from each other’s experiences. In supporting parents, we have also funded further guidance and support including through Parent Zone. Further research exploring the relationship between social media and child health and how it might be mediated is welcomed, and departmental policies—and the whole Government—will remain agile in light of this emerging evidence base.

We recognise that screen time needs to be proportionate. We do not want screen time to displace beneficial opportunities to socialise face to face and to take part in physical activities. The section of the UK Chief Medical Officer’s report on advice for parents and carers encouraged them to agree with children and young people boundaries, both in and outside school, around online behaviours and time spent using screens.

Amendments 183CA and 183CB, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, seek to update the early years foundation stage statutory framework and ensure the delivery of a public information campaign on the use of screens by children aged nought to five. I have considerable sympathy with what the noble Baroness was saying. It is clear, both for parents of young children and for providers of early years education, that the right framework, proper information and access for both providers and parents is important.

Once more, the Government are not standing by but taking action. The early years foundation stage statutory framework, which was updated last year, has a requirement for safeguarding policies to include how mobile phones, cameras and other electronic devices with imaging and sharing capabilities are used in the setting. It signposts guidance that covers the risks that children in early years settings could be exposed to by using those devices. In September 2025, we will introduce changes to the safeguarding requirements of the early years foundation stage. These were consulted on in 2025, and the changes include a requirement for designated safeguarding leads to have training covering how to ensure internet safety. The safety of our youngest children is our utmost priority, and we continually monitor and review early years safeguarding requirements and guidance.

The “help for early years providers” internet safety guidance was updated in January 2025, following a discussion with the digital standards for early years action group. The guidance highlights both the benefits and challenges of device usage, that devices should be used in settings as a tool to support children’s learning and development, and that sedentary screen time should be avoided.

There are several further resources that parents and providers can turn to, and I very much take the point about ensuring that information for parents is as clear and accessible as possible. That is why we recently updated the Better Health Start for Life website, which provides trusted advice to care providers of children aged nought to five and support for parents. The World Health Organization also provides guidelines on physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep for children under five years of age, with recommendations on limiting screen time. The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, made the very reasonable challenge that we need to keep ensuring that that information is accessible to parents and to those delivering early years provision. I undertake to continue discussions with the department about how we can ensure that not only now but in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Presumably, all the countries that have introduced mobile phone bans in schools have found ways around this. It cannot be beyond the wit of the Government to find a way through this.

I also wondered whether the Minister was going to comment—perhaps she will come on to this—on the power of the social media companies. In her remarks so far, she has come up with what were, in a former life, perfectly respectable and effective solutions, such as that parents should set boundaries with their children. But we, as parents or grandparents, are now competing with social media companies that have a great deal of power and expertise to disrupt all those good 20th century-type responses.

Lastly, I wonder whether she feels that the figures she gave on schools adopting phone restrictions tie in with the evidence from Teacher Tapp about the level of disruption in lessons that my noble friend referred to.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

On the point about regulation, the reason why I started by referring to the Online Safety Act was precisely to identify the need that was manifest in a piece of legislation that came through this House before my time but which presumably some noble Lords around the Chamber were engaged in and which was precisely about how to regulate the use of social media for children and young people. That legislation did not happen in the last century; it is literally only just on the statute books. I was making the case that it is important, and that it is right for the Government to ensure that it is working properly as a first priority.

The issue of how we support schools to be able to have within them the type of calm behaviour that they need is, of course, absolutely crucial. In response to the question about when we will publish the survey on behaviour, it will be later this year. To come back to the point I made at the beginning, although I very much doubt that the only factor influencing behaviour within schools is mobile phones, everything that head teachers might need to put in place the restrictions on mobile phones that will, along with the other necessary things, enable them to have strong behaviour policies and practice, is, rightly, available to them in order for them to be able to ensure that that is happening.

Lastly, I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Knight. I have already said that I see the point of the exemption he has proposed. However, my point is that you have two routes here: the legislative route, which has already begun to be unravelled by the inclusion of a whole range of exemptions; or a positive set of guidelines for head teachers to use to design and develop, in consultation with parents, their staff and the young people in their schools, the appropriate policies for safeguarding children, protecting behaviour and delivering what individual schools need. At this point, the Government believe that the latter is the most appropriate way forward to ensure that children have the protection from mobile phones they need and in a way that recognises the flexibility that will be necessary.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

Will the Minister give way? We had a debate a few months ago on this very subject and I visited the Fulham Boys School, which is a large all-male school with about 1,200 students, to speak at some length to the headmaster. That school has had a ban on phones for about 10 years. The issue is not about having a ban in school but, as the headmaster said very clearly, what happens outside the school. It does not matter what policies you have in place; they will not solve what young people are doing outside of school time. He said the biggest problem he has had in trying to tackle this issue has not been with the pupils themselves but the parents, some of whom are very challenging and regard it as an infringement of civil liberties that anybody should tell them what their children should or should not do.

The real problem is what happens outside the school. The school can have as many policies as it likes, but until and unless we find a way of influencing what happens outside the school—which, as I said, means getting to the young people, because they know themselves some of the harm being done, and perhaps through them getting to the parents to make them realise how their children feel—we will not start to tackle the psychology behind some of the problems we are confronted with.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I do note that I was coming to the end of my comments at 18 minutes—just so the Whips know I was sticking to the rules. The noble Lord tempts me to say that that was exactly the point I made at the beginning: there has been conflation in this debate of the use of mobile phones in schools, the impact of screen time across children’s lives—I can quite understand people’s concerns about that—and, as I have said, the need for us, at a very early stage in children’s lives, to be clear with them about the appropriate use of screens, which is probably practically none, and clear in the information that we provide to parents. The Government are taking action on all those areas, alongside gathering appropriate evidence. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

The Minister is quite right to point out that the Online Safety Act did not get much of a mention: maybe it is some kind of PTSD, because some of us did hard yards during that difficult passage. One of the most difficult things was the debate on age verification for porn, which started with all the same arguments we have just heard: it is not technically possible; maybe children can learn by watching pornography; the moral rules around telling children what to do are not crystal clear; the science of whether porn is good for children is not cast in stone, and does not have the longitudinal studies that we need to make decisions on it. All that was heard.

At the end of next month, Ofcom will finally bring in a deadline so that all websites that carry a risk of children seeing porn will have to put in age-verification software. Who in this Chamber now genuinely thinks that was a bad decision? Yet it was fought tooth and nail from that Bench by the previous Government, who had to be dragged to that decision by rebellion in the Commons and a four corners of the Chamber effort here.

The Minister faces a similar storm brewing on social media use by under-16s. Could she, with her multidimensional approach to this problem, help us understand the metrics she will use to judge whether it is right to revisit this issue? How many hours a day do children have to spend on social media? How many predators have to get through? How many grooming gangs have to recruit children in order to abuse them? What metrics will she apply to reviewing this decision?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Well, the noble Lord added considerably to his speech there. I did not use some of the arguments that he suggested were used in this Chamber about porn. I was not in this House so I do not know what arguments and debates went on. Nor did I suggest that there are not considerable issues around young people’s use of social media and the amount of their screen time. The noble Lord is very clear that he believes there should be a complete ban on social media for young people aged under 16. I do not know whether that carries a majority in this House, to be honest. Given that, it is important to demonstrate, as I attempted to do, the action that the Government are already taking to address all those issues, whether it is screen time, the impact of social media on young people, or mobile phones in schools. The Government are taking action on all of them, without necessarily thinking that there is one single silver bullet of a ban that can solve all those problems.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I will be brief. I really appreciate what the Minister said on early years. I think it goes a bit beyond safeguarding, but I will look really carefully at what she said. On the evidence point, she referred to the Children’s Commissioner’s work on the policies, but we need to know the effect of those policies. That is where the national behaviour study comes in. The Minister previously told me it was due in spring, but she said it would be later this year. It would be great to understand why there is a delay, if there is one. Could she be more specific about when we will see that study of what is going on in our schools? I will be happy for her to write.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

First, I said more than safeguarding; I hope she can go back and look at the record to see that. I was pretty sympathetic to the points she made, and I said much more than safeguarding. I share her frustration about when the survey will be published. That is all I can say about it.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and all noble Lords for their contributions. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Bethell for his contribution. I am just so sorry that we will perhaps not see him around this place for very much longer.

On the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran concerning the possession and use of smartphones in schools, as my noble friend Lady Penn said, it may be that 90% of schools have a policy, but, unless smartphones are physically not allowed in schools, bans will be ineffective. Teachers are reporting that children are going to the loo far more often; I see the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who is a teacher, nodding. Some schools use pouches, but the evidence is clear. As my noble friend Lady Barran said, if my smartphone is there, I will concentrate far less than if it is out of the room. Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Agnew said, children are very ingenious. I am told there are ingenious methods of opening and closing these pouches by using magnets and various other methods.

On what the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said about the consequences for any school or person who did not follow a ban if we passed this amendment to ban smartphones in schools, I do not think for a moment that we are talking about a criminal offence. Surely a duty would do.

I am highly sceptical about what the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said about allowing smartphones in schools to teach their safe use. Children know far more about how to use these things than adults. They do not need to see a phone to be told what not to watch. Unless they cannot access social media, pornography or whatever because of age verification, they will watch it. That is what kids do.

On my noble friend Lady Penn’s amendment, which I support, I will make this point. Heads of primary schools have recently been alerted—I used that word advisedly, because none of them can tell me they were aware of any specific notification on this—to the fact that the reception baseline assessment, the RBA, will now require four year-olds to be tested using touch-screen devices, which, of course, they will have to familiarise themselves with before they take the tests. If we bring these screens into schools—

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Does the noble Lord accept that that assessment—the procurement, analysis and evaluation of which started back in 2019—will be carried out alongside teachers, with the ability for teachers to use other methods with children where necessary? This is not something that children will use on their own, on screen.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

I understand that entirely. I understand that there will be two devices, on one of which the teacher will have to log the responses. The pupil will sometimes use a hard copy, but they will have to touch a screen for some of the tests. So we will be bringing these devices into primary schools, which will accept their existence for these ages. Goodness knows where this might go in primary schools without the kinds of amendments my noble friend Lady Penn is proposing.

The Government have entered into a £20 million contract with Made Tech Group plc to develop the relevant technology for the reception baseline assessment. The contract specifically states that

“the RBA will be the first service launched to schools in a wider suite of digital assessment tools”.

In other words, this is the thin end of the wedge. I hope the Government will reconsider this. I note what the Minister said about hoping that there is very little of this sort of thing in the early years.

I heard the Minister’s response to my Amendment 177. I listened carefully, and I am afraid that clauses and phrases such as “The Government will do what is needed to keep children safe online”, “Online Safety Act”, “scientific evidence mixed”, “correlation and causality”, “build the evidence base”, “publish results in due course”, “recommendations on limiting screen time” and “advice on sleep” do not fill me with any hope. All this sounds to me like statisticians wanting 100 years of evidence before they say the case is proven. The time is now. How much more evidence do we need? How much more damage do we need to see before we act?

I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said about Ofcom, but social media companies are perfectly capable of implementing highly effective age limits if they want to. I am glad he was listening so carefully to what I said and noted some similarity between what I said today and what I said in the purpose clause debate, but I hope that when he checks Hansard he will see that there was quite a lot of new material there.

Concerning my Amendment 177 on banning social media before 16, there are clearly very strong feelings about this across the Committee, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said. This is becoming a real issue for working families across the country, and I have no doubt that if it is not dealt with before the next election, it will be a big issue on the doorstep, as my noble friend Lord Bethell said. It is no secret that there is support for this not only in this House but across the Benches in the other place, including from a number of honourable Labour Members demonstrated by, for instance, Josh MacAlister’s Bill and other interventions. I urge the Minister to convene a meeting across the political spectrum to discuss how we can take this matter forward, and I ask her now, as a first step, whether she will kindly meet me very soon to discuss how we can take this forward. We may—indeed, we almost certainly will—look to bring this back on Report, but for now I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, Amendment 486 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, also sets out a path to an explicit early years strategy in terms of key activities, including Start for Life and family hubs, solid data recording and collection, and a workforce plan. As my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham said, all too often it is obvious by the time children reach school which ones are likely to struggle, both academically and emotionally. There is clear potential to bring these programmes together with the extended government offer of childcare for preschool-age children, and to focus on some of the key school-readiness outcomes that my noble friends Lady Cash and Lord Young talked about. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a good discussion on this third group of amendments about the important issue of ensuring that children get the very best start in life. This Government’s opportunity mission is a bold and necessary commitment to break the link between a child’s background and their future success. It begins where it matters most: in the early years.

We have heard quite a lot of discussion, along with some reminiscing and nostalgia, about the last Labour Government’s Sure Start scheme. Without rehearsing the reasons why we no longer have Sure Start, having once had it has at least demonstrated, through the evaluation that several noble Lords referenced, the considerable success of that model. Also, the process of setting up Sure Start under the last Labour Government at least provides us with some hope of and a road map to getting back its very important contributions—even if we do not, in the words of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, completely reinstate it.

Amendment 183B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, seeks to publish a national strategy. As the noble Baroness said, this is a probing amendment and I hope I am going to be able to be encouraging about the national strategy. This Government firmly believe that children’s early years are crucial to their development, health and life chances. That is why we have set an ambition for a record proportion of children starting school to be ready to learn in the classroom. We will measure progress through 75% of children by 2028 reaching a good level of development in the early years foundation stage profile assessment at the end of reception. This is not just a statistic or a target—it is around 45,000 more children who will start school ready to learn, thrive and succeed. This measure has seen little progress in years, so it is ambitious—but as noble Lords across the Committee have said, it is ambitious because it needs to be.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, suggested that nobody so far had mentioned the expansion of access to childcare, so I am going to mention it. The Government are already delivering on this commitment through the expansion of access to childcare with 30 funded hours for working parents from September, and we will be investing an additional £1.6 billion per year by 2028-29 to continue the expansion of government-funded childcare for working parents, boosting children’s life chances and work choices for their parents. Alongside that, we are creating 6,000 new nursery places in schools across the country, in the first wave of 300 school-based nurseries backed by £37 million. At the spending review, we announced almost £370 million of further funding to create tens of thousands of places in new and expanded school-based nurseries.

Secondly, we will work in partnership with the sector to drive up standards and improve the quality of early years provision. We recognise that early years professionals need more than just praise, although they are very praiseworthy; they need real, practical support. That means offering sustained professional development and working with providers to help spread evidence-based programmes as part of comprehensive plans to drive high-quality early education and care. Only by listening to the expertise and experience of those on the ground can we deliver this together.

Here, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, makes a really important point about the way in which we enable the early identification of those with specific learning difficulties in early years settings. On other occasions, I have talked from this Dispatch Box about some of the additional training and guidance that we are putting in place in early years provision to ensure that happens. I am sure the noble Baroness will quite rightly hold me to account for that in future years.

Improving reception year quality is also critical for setting children up for success in the rest of primary school. We genuinely hope and believe that the work we will put in place will enable children to arrive in school able to learn. As several noble Lords have pointed out, for some children it is not until they arrive at school that they have the structure and the support to enable them to have the skills and development necessary to be able to learn. That is why reception year is so critical. It is also why we have recently announced that for our RISE teams, one of the four universal service national priorities will be how we support reception years to improve. That will involve helping all schools to share best practice, to build partnerships and to drive improvement.

Thirdly, we are strengthening family services. Through family hubs and Start for Life programmes, we are building a joined-up system of support from pregnancy through early childhood. These hubs are already transforming lives in more than 500 communities, offering everything from parenting support to perinatal mental health care. At the spending review, the Chancellor committed to continuing to invest in and expand the family hubs programme.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, and other noble Lords on the importance of a national strategy. I assure noble Lords who have said it is important to talk not only about progress but about how this will be brought together into a strategy that the Government have already committed to publishing a best start in life strategy. We expect to do it this year, and hopefully sooner than the end of the year. All noble Lords made the point about the need to ensure that this is a coherent and wide-ranging strategy to deliver on the strong target set by the Government.

I do not want to pre-empt the contents of the strategy, but I assure Peers that it will build on our commitment to improve children’s early outcomes and next steps on early years reform. It will also give a view about both how delivery will be achieved and how it will be monitored, implemented and reported. Parliament will be able to hold the Government to account on that commitment and the implementation of that strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lady Stedman-Scott, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, have made an incredibly strong case for the importance of this amendment. As my noble friend Lady Coffey said, the Lords Public Services Committee has a live inquiry into this very important topic.

The statistics are stark, as we heard, with over a million children covered by child maintenance agreements but enforcement still not being effective enough and too many parents making no payments at all, paying irregularly or paying insufficient amounts. When I was running the domestic abuse charity SafeLives, non-payment of child maintenance was incredibly frequent and caused huge problems in the lives of children and their mothers. As other noble Lords have said, at its simplest, non-payment exacerbates either the risk of poverty or the actual poverty that so many single-parent families face. In cases of domestic abuse, non-payment was often used as a means of coercion and control over a mother and her child, raising the risk of harm to them both. The anxiety that this creates, and the pressure that this puts on a mother, directly impact the well-being of her child.

We also saw the longer-term impact, in physical and mental health problems for the child. The Institute for Public Policy Research has found that child maintenance currently lifts around 140,000 children out of poverty across the UK. Conversely, when payments are not made, the impact is devastating. Finally, we know that child maintenance is not just a private matter between separated parents but a fundamental determinant of a child’s well-being and future life chances. When maintenance payments fail, society bears the cost through increased demand on public services, educational support and healthcare interventions.

As my noble friend so simply and clearly put it, there are two pieces of legislation on the statute books that need to be commenced. I hope very much that the Minister will confirm that the Government plan to do that and that we can make progress on unlocking the £700 million that belongs to our children.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am not surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, managed to persuade those in a position to be persuaded that this amendment should have the opportunity to be discussed this evening. There is something refreshing about the idea of the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Stedman-Scott, rightly pursuing people who owe money for their children and who have that responsibility. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lady Sherlock and the current Secretary of State will be equally relentless in making sure that families are paying for the children for whom they have responsibility, and that is quite right.

I know from what the noble Baroness said that the intention of this amendment is to probe and push on the progress being made with each of the pieces of legislation that she talked about. I hope to provide some reassurance on that.

First, the powers within Section 34 of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act enable debt owed to parents or the Secretary of State to be transferred to other parties, including debt collection agencies. This power was introduced as an option to deal with the £3.8 billion debt burden that had accrued under the former Child Support Agency. A proportion of that debt was owed directly to the Secretary of State, and I am assured that the issue of Child Support Agency debt has now been resolved. The Child Maintenance Service has strong and effective enforcement powers, including imposing prison sentences for non-payment.

On the specific point about debt collection agencies, there is no evidence that using debt collection agencies would actually secure more child maintenance than current enforcement powers. In fact, a previous trial absolutely demonstrated that, so there is no evidence that commencing this power would have a positive impact on children’s well-being.

Secondly, the Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023 introduced powers that, once commenced, would enable an administrative liability order to be made against a parent with outstanding child maintenance arrears. As the noble Baroness says, this introduces savings in court costs and time. I am pleased to confirm that progress is being made to implement the necessary legislation to bring this power into force as soon as possible. The Government are working with His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunal Service and the Scottish Government to establish a process for implementing ALOs, and plan to introduce regulations to Parliament by the end of this year.

The Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Act 2023 recognised that direct pay may not always be appropriate for victims and survivors of domestic abuse. The Act intended to provide them greater protection when using the Child Maintenance Service, by allowing them to move to the collect and pay service but only where there is evidence of domestic abuse. The Government recognise that removing opportunities to use the Child Maintenance Service to inflict economic abuse will benefit the well-being of children. However, many victims and survivors would be unable to provide that necessary evidence as required by the Act. For those who could, there are risks that providing evidence of their experience of abuse and reliving events could lead to further trauma.

That is why the Government today published our response to the consultation, Child Maintenance: Improving the Collection and Transfer of Payments. It sets out plans for reforms to introduce a service that protects all parents from financial abuse and, importantly, includes no requirement for victims and survivors to provide evidence of their circumstances. These reforms, therefore, go further than the provisions contained in the 2023 Act to protect victims and survivors of domestic abuse. They will have a positive impact on children and their well-being, as more child maintenance liabilities will be enforced, leading to more money going to children, which I know is the objective of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, in moving this amendment.

I hope that I have provided sufficient reassurance for the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment, although she has already identified that she has other ways to put pressure on the Government to ensure progress, and I have no doubt that she will continue to do so.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

In consideration of what the Minister has said, of which I am conscious of certain aspects, I am pleased, in particular, to hear that the Child Support (Enforcement) Act should come into effect by the end of the year. I will take up some of the other matters to which she referred directly with the responsible Minister. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 189 and 191 to 193 en bloc. I thank all noble Lords who have made such valuable contributions to this group thus far.

On the Thursday just past, we heard some excellent speeches in your Lordships’ House on the various issues relating to the provision of healthy, nutritious food in schools and the possibility of providing eligible children with free school meals and activities during the holidays. It is most opportune that we now have the ability constructively to challenge His Majesty’s Government around the base provision and right of those children eligible to take advantage of free school meals during term time.

Amendment 189 in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley, Lady Lister and Lady Cass, and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, seeks to require the Secretary of State to review free school meal eligibility and pupil premium registration. It is absolutely correct that schools and local authorities should have complete and full data, and that those pupils who are eligible for free school meals actually take them up. They are clearly the pupils most likely to need free school meal provision. If His Majesty’s Government would please listen to the eminently sensible suggestions from other noble Lords last week, including those in this Committee right now, those meals will consist of healthy, nutritious food, with fruit, vegetables and low sugar levels in both food and drink. Healthy nutritious food and free school meals for every pupil eligible will hugely aid the learning and development of children in the UK.

Both Amendment 191 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett and Lady Lister, and Amendment 193 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley, Lady Lister and Lady Cass, and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, seek to change the system of enrolment for free school meals so that there is auto-enrolment for all eligible families. It appears that difficulties can arise during the application process and, for some, the forms can be overly complicated, but it is crucial that eligible families are able to access this provision. We understand that changing the system in this way is far from straightforward, but some local authorities are investigating how to make such a system work, and our observation to the Minister is that this is surely worth fighting for. Ensuring that all pupils who should receive free school meals do indeed receive them would, we believe, be a top priority on every Bench of your Lordships’ House.

Amendment 192, in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Lister, seeks to expand free school meals to all children in state-funded primary schools. While we agree that it is vital for all students to be able to access a healthy, nutritious meal at school, we suggest that this scheme would be potentially expensive to implement and that there could be a more efficient and appropriate allocation of resources and funding within school budgets. That is not to say that providing free school lunches for all primary school children in state-funded schools is a bad idea—in a perfect world, of course, it is a great idea—but we suggest that a detailed analysis is required of how much it would cost. Is it realistic to have some contribution from parents, even if small? What impact would it have on the other elements of school life if the school and the local authority had to find the funding without additional resource from His Majesty’s Government? These are just some of the questions we seek answers for from the Minister, and we look forward to hearing His Majesty’s Government’s response.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to free school meals and follow on, of course, from the interesting debate that we had last week on wider issues relating to school food. Amendment 192, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, would extend the provision of free school meals to all pupils attending state-funded primary schools. The Government are clear about the benefits that children enjoy when they receive a free and nutritious lunch. They support attainment, because hungry children cannot concentrate and learn. By improving behaviour, nutritious and free meals also lead to better outcomes, meaning that children can get the best possible education and chance to succeed in work and life.

It is in recognition of these benefits that this Government have confirmed that all children in households receiving universal credit will be eligible to receive free meals from September 2026. This represents a significant expansion of support to over 500,000 children. The Government have chosen, though, to focus this on the most disadvantaged households, which we are backing with over £1 billion in funding. This is on top of the 3.4 million children who are already provided with free meals by the Government. Moreover, by widening access to free meals, and doing it in the way that this Government have chosen, we will lift 100,000 children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament, reversing the trend of rising child poverty that we inherited from the previous Government.

This is the priority that this Government have decided on. Of course, it goes alongside the rolling out of free breakfast clubs to every primary school pupil, which we had the opportunity to discuss last week, meaning, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, that significantly more children will have the benefit of both a free breakfast and a free lunch. Alongside that, as we have talked previously about, we are expanding government-funded childcare and legislating to cap the number of branded school uniform items. These are all serious developments in the Government’s plan to break the unfair link between background and opportunity.

Amendments 191 and 193, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Walmsley, seek, as we have heard, to ensure that all households meeting the eligibility criteria for free meals would automatically receive this without having to make a claim—something which is required under current provisions. The first and most important point is that the process of now linking free school meal entitlement to universal credit makes it far simpler and more likely that there will effectively be an automatic understanding of the eligibility for free school meals. We want to ensure that all families who need it are able to claim the support they are eligible to receive. That is why we provide an eligibility checking system to local authorities; this is an online portal that makes verifying eligibility for free meals quick and easy. We are rolling out improvements to this system, to allow parents and schools to review eligibility for free school meals independently, which will make it even easier for families to claim the support they are entitled to. These actions will support the take-up of free meals. However, we will keep under review the extent to which free meals, and all the benefits that come with them, are being taken up.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

The Minister twice mentioned monitoring the take-up. Do the Government know how many families should be claiming free school meals? That would surely help in understanding how close the Government are to reaching the goal that all noble Lords are asking for, which is free school meals for everyone who is eligible. What is that number? I do not need the answer now, but do the Government have that information, because presumably they should do?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My point was that linking free school meal entitlement to universal credit will make it much easier both for families to apply and for us to monitor the levels. However, I will respond to the noble Lord on his specific point.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and all noble Lords who have spoken in favour of this important group of amendments. I assure the Minister that, as I have said today and last week, I very much welcome the expansion of eligibility for free school meals.

On Amendment 189, it is important that when the Government come, as the Minister has promised they will, to monitor the uptake under the new eligibility rules, there is enough detail in there. My amendment mentions demographics, regional differences and cultural differences and so on. All that would give a good and useful set of information to help the Government to develop policy even further.

I am not going to go on any further about free school meals—I could go on all night. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, resisted it and so will I. I beg to withdraw the amendment.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

Returning to the issue of the cost of uniforms, and cost has been the issue with widespread agreement across the House, the single most expensive items of school clothing are not uniforms but the fashion brands that children will urge their parents to buy for them. I hope very much that the Minister takes these amendments in the constructive spirit in which they are tabled.

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

My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments in group one. Just to be clear, the Government believe that uniforms have an important role to play in our schools, for many of the reasons that noble Lords have outlined, but we are committed to cutting the cost of school uniforms for families. This is why we have chosen to support families by limiting in this Bill the number of branded items that schools can require pupils to have. This will enable parents to buy more items from a range of retailers, including high street retailers, allowing them the flexibility to make spending decisions that suit their circumstances.

On Amendment 195 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, we want to ensure that any action we take provides schools and parents with clarity and offers parents choice in how to manage the costs of school uniforms. Ensuring that parents can buy more items from a range of retailers gives them that flexibility. The argument has been made that a cost cap is simpler than the Government’s proposals. I cannot see that argument. A cost cap would mean that schools would have to review uniform policies annually, as the noble Lord said, to ensure that they remained within the cap. It could mean schools changing their uniforms more frequently, thereby increasing overall costs and restricting choice for parents. A cost cap would be complex for schools and suppliers to administer, and the need to meet a particular price for items could also increase a school’s reliance on specific suppliers, whereas a competitive market benefits all parties, allowing parents to take advantage of lower prices, better-quality goods and services, new and innovative products, and greater choice.

Responding to the points made about the school uniform grant, we recognise that parents are struggling with the cost of uniforms—that is why we are bringing forward these provisions—and that in England some local authorities provide discretionary grants to help with buying school uniforms in cases of financial hardship. We are facing difficult choices about how we best support families. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, in a rather dismissive comment about government officials, which has been a bit of a regrettable theme this afternoon, suggested that it was somehow unreasonable of the Government to be considering the cost of the proposals they are bringing forward. A national grant, even if targeted to those most in need, would be a considerable commitment in the current financial climate, so, rather than subsidising expensive uniforms through a grant, this Government have chosen to reduce the cost of uniforms for all parents through these provisions.

On Amendments 195A and 195B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, as previously mentioned, it is a key priority of these provisions that we provide clarity on what the measure means for parents. These amendments could create confusion for parents about whether a given branded item of uniform would be captured within the statutory limit, depending on how it was acquired. There is also a risk that schools may subsequently attempt to charge parents for expensive replacements if branded items provided for free are lost or damaged. Furthermore, allowing schools to set different uniform policies depending on the school’s ability to provide or source branded items for free could also risk increasing inequalities between schools and pupils.

Amendments 196 and 197 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, seek to increase the number of items that secondary and middle schools can require from three to five, or six if one of those items is a tie. We believe that the limits in the measure that the Government are bringing forward provide the best balance between reducing costs for parents and ensuring that schools, parents and pupils can continue to experience the benefits that allowing a small number of branded items can bring, while ensuring that schools retain the flexibility needed to set uniform policies that work for them. Increasing these limits would significantly limit the impact of this measure, depriving many parents of the opportunity to enjoy greater choice in where to buy their child’s uniform and the flexibility to make spending decisions that suit their circumstances.

Amendment 197A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young, is, as written, as opposed to some of the points the noble Lord made, which I will come to, unnecessary as the measure does not restrict the ability of schools to offer branded items for sale or to provide or loan branded uniform items, such as competition kit, as long as these items are optional. This is an important point, because there has been some suggestion that it would not be possible for schools to offer branded items or to provide or loan branded items. It would be, but they would have to be optional. If wearing the item is optional for participation in the activity, it is not counted in the limit of branded items.

We also do not want to place an undue burden on schools by suggesting—

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I am sorry, perhaps the Minister is about to come to this: that is what normally happens when I stand up. I think my noble friend was saying that in the CCF, you have to wear the CCF uniform. Similarly, if you are representing the school in a sports competition, I am not sure it is really optional. But maybe the Minister is about to clarify that.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

On the sports competition, I think it is wholly possible to envisage that the school would provide a set of branded uniform for the school sports team, while not suggesting that it was compulsory to wear it. Of course, I understand all the arguments for wanting to have a clear identity for the school while you are doing sports. On the point about cadets, which I was specifically coming to—sorry, I will make one other point before I come to cadets. There is a challenge. We do not want to place an undue burden on schools by suggesting that they should routinely be supplying additional, expensive, branded uniform items to their pupils at no cost.

The point about cadets is important. We do not intend the legislation to prevent cadets, and we will consider how to make that clear. Our view is that the legislation does not do that, but we understand the point being made and we will ensure that that is made clear, because of the benefits of students being able to take part in cadets in the way in which the noble Lord outlined.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Just to be clear on this, I heard the Minister say that, in the case of cadets, where wearing a uniform is required and it is given for free, the Government will clarify that that is acceptable. She also said that she does not want to place undue burdens on schools, understandably, but, in a sports competition, whether pupils wear the kit that is provided for free is going to be optional. That feels unworkable and very inconsistent.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

What I said was that this measure does not prevent schools providing or loaning branded uniform items, such as competition kit, but, if that were to be compulsory, that of course would need to be included in the three branded items. As long as those items are optional, I do not think it is too difficult to envisage that schools might be able to make that work.

[Lord Nash (Con)]

So if the shirt provided by the school is blue and the opposition plays in red, and this has all been arranged in advance, and some pupils decide to be difficult and turn up in red, which will create chaos, that is okay, but if you say “You’ve all got to turn up in blue”, that is breaking the rules. It does not sound very practical. I ask the Minister to take a bit of time with people who run schools and officials to see whether we can work our way through this in a practical way, while at the same time trying to make sure that all children are treated equally and that we limit the costs as far as we can.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am certainly willing to continue thinking about the issue of school sports, because it is very much not the intention of the Government to prevent the loaning of branded items for school sports. On the example that the noble Lord mentioned, in my day, when I played hockey, if we ended up playing against a school with a similarly coloured kit, we wore bibs to distinguish ourselves. My point is that I do not think it is impossible to overcome this. Let us come back to it. I take the point that noble Lords have made here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Would the Minister care to address my point about the fact that we have great concern about pupils not in school, yet we are excluding them for this reason? It is reducing the amount of education that pupils are getting.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I do not think the main reason why pupils are being excluded from school is because of issues to do with their hair, but I do think it is right for schools to have the ability to set the criteria and the constraints within which they expect their pupils to behave. While not being across all the individual cases that the noble Baroness outlined, I can imagine circumstances in which it would be justifiable to take action against students who perhaps persistently fail to comply with the rules that have been set by a school, including about their appearance. We have had a wide-ranging debate, and I hope I have responded to all the points raised.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

Will the Minister go away and consider the fate of the branded book bag, which means so much to primary and infant schools? It should not be included as part of the three, because it is a way of encouraging reading and literacy in our schools.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I also very much enjoyed the bookbags my boys carried backwards and forwards to school, but I am not sure that trumps what the Government are trying to achieve in reducing the cost of school uniforms. Of course, any school that felt that was crucial could of course include it in the three branded items in the legislative proposals.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

From the debate we have just had, It is clear noble Lords have a keen interest in school uniforms. I am going to keep my submission brief. I thank everyone; I think we are all on the same page in the sense that we want to reduce the cost of school uniforms. We have different ideas, but that is what your Lordships’ House is about; we come here together to improve legislation from the other place.

I am keen that we pursue this. I see that in the other place the Government are in a spirit of reflection and review of policies. I hope that spirit wheels its way down the Corridor to here. Then we can also say that, yes, the Government have an ambition of reducing the cost, but we also have ideas that warrant looking at. They may well be ideas that work better. I hope the Government think about it as we move to the next stage of the Bill, so I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 195.

--- Later in debate ---

The register will have downsides in terms of privacy and diversion of effort. It will intimidate some parents out of home education altogether, and it will begin to change the philosophy that guides home education. The current philosophy is that parents have the responsibility for their own children’s education. The requirement for local authority permission and the huge amount of information demanded by the state go in a different direction. They are starting to tell parents that the state knows best. That is why I personally am nervous about not just Clause 31 but many of these proposals: we are seeing the erosion of the vital principle that freedom and autonomy are fundamentally important and that the state does not have the right to go anywhere it wants at will. I am sure we will come back to all these issues, but, for the time being, I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I acknowledge that it is unusual to rise at this point in the debate. I recognise that we have lots of detailed groups ahead of us in considering the issues in these clauses, but I thought it might be helpful and important to set out the intention behind the children not in school measures before we get into further detail on the technical elements.

But, first, I pay tribute to those noble Members of this House who have previously supported legislative measures introducing registers of children not in school: the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, who did excellent work in this space as part of her role in government; the noble Lord, Lord Storey, who has tirelessly worked to support and craft legislation; and Lord Soley, who has now retired from this House, who did a tremendous amount of work in campaigning for these registers.

I also thank Members of the House for their engagement to date, including the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who met with officials, the noble Lord, Lord Wei, and my noble friend Lord Hacking who met my colleague Stephen Morgan, the Minister for Early Years. The engagement and overall support for these measures from all sides of the House have been welcome and instructive, but I recognise the detailed questions that noble Lords have, as reflected in the many groups we have ahead of us. On that basis, I want to be clear that it is important for this engagement to continue as we look at the detail of how this measure is implemented.

We also continue to engage with the home-educating community. The previous Government held a consultation on a children not in school register in 2019, which received around 5,000 responses, mainly from parents. We have built on this engagement and have an ongoing implementation forum made up of home educators and other stakeholders, as well as other engagement opportunities with officials and Ministers. We will also consult on the regulations and statutory guidance required for implementation of the measures, which will provide further opportunity for engagement. I have given the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, a commitment that this engagement will continue following the end of Committee. Input from noble Lords, as well as local authorities, home educators and others, will be invaluable as we move towards drafting the regulations and statutory guidance required for the successful implementation of the measures.

On the purpose behind the children not in school measures, I know that noble Lords will agree that every child has the right to a safe and suitable education, whether at school or at home. This is the underpinning principle of these measures. The legal responsibility for a child’s education rests with their parents. This Bill does not change that. Some parents choose to fulfil their responsibility by exercising their right to educate their child at home. We recognise this right and we know that many home-educating parents work hard to ensure that their child receives a suitable—in fact, often an excellent—education.

Unfortunately, however, that is not the case for all children. Where children are missing out on education, it is essential that they can be identified quickly and supported. Local authorities have an existing legal duty to make arrangements to identify children not in school in their areas who are not receiving a suitable education, but this is undermined by the lack of obligation on parents to notify their local authority that they are home educating. England and Wales are outliers among western nations in this respect. We are in a small minority whereby there is no requirement for parents to inform authorities that they are home educating. The noble Lord, Lord Frost—I think there may be a theme among some noble Lords on this—believes, or fears, that what is proposed in this legislation is an overstretching of the intrusion of the state into the issue of home education. I simply identify to him, as I have suggested, that England and Wales in fact have very light—arguably too light at the moment—regulation of home education. Even if all the provisions in this Bill come to fruition, we will still have a very light legislative approach, because we recognise the right of parents to choose to home educate.

We also recognise that the current system makes it too easy for children not in school to fall through the gaps. The department, the Government, indeed all of us, cannot ignore the rising numbers of children not in school. Our latest data shows that, as of October 2024, there are 111,700 children known to be home educated and 39,200 children known to be missing education.

An effective system of registration for children not in school is therefore long overdue. Parties across the political spectrum have attempted to introduce one and parents recognise that registers are common-sense. A recent poll commissioned by my department shows that three-quarters of parents surveyed believe that parents should be required to register their home-educated children with local councils. Together, I am confident that we can deliver on this long called-for system of registration and ensure that it works for local authorities, parents and children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I think this is a very important amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Meston. It reminds us that, in this part of the Bill, we dealing not just with parents who choose to educate their children at home but with some very substantial problems that state education has in not keeping hold of and looking after children who are nominally registered at school. I will come on to the question of unregistered alternative education, to which the state commits many children, in a later amendment. This is about looking after the children and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has put his finger very firmly on what we ought to be doing.

If there is a whole structure being built here to get better information on home-educated children, what is the point of it if we are not already using the information we have on children who are registered? Is there actually a responsive system that all this extra information is going to be fed into? Are we actually focusing on the children who need our help, or are we just making life more difficult for a lot of very responsible and successful parents? I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the Government’s approach to elective home education. I felt that there was a good deal in common in our approaches and I very much hope to be able to build on that as we look at these amendments.

I will very much endeavour not to take up the time of the House if I can avoid it. In that context, picking up on the Minister’s very kind offer of conversations with officials, might it not help if those conversations could take place between today and 1 September? That would mean that I would not have to take up time in Committee: we could short-circuit it before then. I am in the UK all August, but perhaps that might not amuse her officials.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I can clarify for the noble Lord that that is what I had in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for the clarity she brought with her earlier remarks. She set out the objectives of the Government and her commitment, on behalf of colleagues in the department, to work with Peers across the House—it looks as though that will be in August—to explore their concerns and, where possible, to address them. I also thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for the constructive tone of his opening remarks.

The principle of having a register for children not in school has long held cross-party support and, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, described, there are very different groups of children who are educated at home. What the debate has started to explore is that, in our eagerness to safeguard vulnerable children, which we must try to do well, and to support those children who have struggled in mainstream school, we must also make every effort not to stigmatise, or to treat with suspicion, parents who make a positive choice to home-educate their children.

This group and many of the others which follow highlight the complexity of creating a home-schooling register and the multiplicity of details that need to be considered. I note that Amendments 202C, 227, 227A and 286 and the opposition to Clause 31 standing part of the Bill are all probing, and I look forward to the Minister’s clarifications. I thought, unsurprisingly, that my noble friend Lord Frost made some very valid points on the risk of duplication of supervision and safeguarding in relation to children who are flexi-schooled.

On the individual amendments, there are two in this group which we support: Amendment 226 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and Amendment 279 in the name of my noble friends Lord Nash and Lord Agnew. With regard to children missing education and Amendment 226, most people would be surprised if it was not already a duty to inform the court if proceedings relating to the welfare of the child were under way and that child was not in school. It seems to me highly relevant information for the court to take into consideration, since there is a lot more risk attached to a child who is classified as missing education as opposed to a child who is electively home-educated. I am not sure about the practicality of consistent arrangements to address persistent non-attendance or irregular attendance, as the noble Lord’s amendment sets out, but I absolutely support the spirit of his amendment that the family courts should be made aware of the child’s situation and the risks that accompany it.

Amendment 279 in the names of my noble friends Lord Nash and Lord Agnew raised the important point of what a local authority can do if it has concerns that a child is not receiving a suitable education or, indeed, any real education at all. I hope that the Government have thought about this and have a plan for it. There is a great deal of detail in new Section 436C in Clause 31 of the Bill, but nothing about the actual education that a child receives, just the time spent and with whom.

On Amendment 233A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I remember very well the meeting with a group of home-educators—in fact, I look below Bar and there they are again, in the same place as last time; it is like Groundhog Day. The amendment would remove new Section 436C, which defines in detail the content and process for maintaining the proposed children not in school registers. While I agree with the noble Lord that the drafting appears unnecessarily detailed and potentially intrusive, it is important to have clarity about what will be recorded and how it will be kept up to date.

I also cannot support my noble friend Lord Lucas’s opposition to Clause 31 standing part of the Bill, although I appreciate that this was designed to give the House a chance to explore the principles that the Government intend to follow, which we have heard from the Minister. My noble friend will remember that, in the 2022 Schools Bill, we were very clear that a register for children not in school was necessary. I think the current Government have improved on our original proposal in one way, with the increased focus on safeguarding in Clause 30—although, as I said in relation to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I regret the extent of detail that is required in the Bill. Of course, we will probe in subsequent groups the balance between the clear right of parents to educate their children at home and the right of a child to receive a suitable education, but the principle of a local authority register for children not in school has very broad support.

My understanding is that the remaining amendments in this group are also all probing amendments. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have heard, this group of amendments relates to the purpose and scope of children not in school registers. As the first group in consideration of these clauses, it has, rightly, raised some broad issues of principle as well, so I will speak for slightly longer than I will, I hope, on subsequent groups to put some of the important principles on the record and, I hope, to begin to allay some of the concerns expressed.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for the important points he raised. I want to address the principal points, as I say, before turning to other noble Lords’ amendments in this grouping. During today’s debate, we will hear much about parents’ rights, so I want to be clear up front again that parents already have and will continue to have a right to home-educate their children, in line with their preferences, values or religious beliefs. On some of the specific points that the noble Lord raised, we will give further consideration in Clause 36 to the nature of the places in which children are educated and whether they should be further inspected and regulated.

The noble Lord is right that we are attempting here to make sure that we know where children are and that they are seen. It is not about preventing them being educated elsewhere than in schools or necessarily seeing that as a risk. It is important that we do not, as some noble Lords have suggested, view the register as a statement that there is something illegitimate in the choices made by many parents to educate their children. It is about ensuring that every child, however, is seen. It is also important that we do not lose sight of parents’ responsibilities and children’s rights. The noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Nash, made this point very well. Parental rights are not absolute. They must be able to be evidence to local authorities that education is suitable. That is the existing position and the Bill does not change it. Children not in school registers will help ensure that children’s right to a safe, suitable education is protected. It is the Government’s ambition that no child falls through the gaps in this respect. The information that we are asking parents to provide for the registers is underpinned by that very singular goal.

To be absolutely clear, the registers are not intended to drive a wedge between local authorities and parents. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and other noble Lords that positive engagement between parents and local authorities is essential. I also recognise the concerns of noble Lords that we are careful about the burdens and the process for gathering and recording information for the register. This is an area where looking at it in more detail with officials in my department may well help provide some assurance to noble Lords.

Information recorded on registers and shared with the department could increase transparency and accountability; for example, by improving our understanding of reasons for home education and local authority practices. Why people choose to home-educate and accountability for local authorities are both important.

I understand that data protection is a concern for many and we take it very seriously, including our data protection obligations. We are committed to high standards of information security, privacy and transparency. All data will be processed only for a specific purpose, which in this case is regarding a child’s education, welfare or safeguarding. Local authorities will also be subject to the UK GDPR as the domain data controllers. We will talk in more detail about the nature of the information collected and its use in some later groups.

I will now move on to address in more detail other points that have been raised by noble Lords, beginning with Amendment 226, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. Tackling persistent absence and ensuring that we can trace and support children who are identified as missing school due to persistent absence is a very important part of our mission to break down the barriers to opportunity. I thank the noble Lord for raising this important issue. However, it is not necessary to set up a new system to track and trace these children. Schools are already required to return the information outlined in the noble Lord’s amendment to their local authority. Schools are also required to share information on attendance with the Secretary of State through the school census and the department’s daily attendance data collection. As outlined in the department’s statutory guidance Working Together to Improve School Attendance, local authorities are expected to use this information to identify attendance problems and to take appropriate action. Expectations include facilitating support for families where that is required, such as in the family courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wei (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but is it not the case that if a determined local authority objects to home-schooling, they could start a process of investigating a family under these powers and therefore, technically, the family would be under investigation and could be refused—and all parents could theoretically be prevented from doing so?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

No, and we will come to that in detail. The Section 47 provision, the child protection inquiries, would require evidence of significant harm to the child. It is not the case, as we have identified, that many parents who are home-educating would get anywhere near that sort of threshold. Nor would local authorities have any incentive to do that.

These provisions do not prohibit flexi-schooling arrangements. However, schools should agree to a flexi-schooling arrangement only in exceptional circumstances. We will update guidance to make this clear. In later groups we will be talking in more detail about the provisions around the consent process.

I turn to Amendment 286 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. This is a probing amendment which would remove an exemption on the parental duty to provide information for registers. To be clear, the proposed exemption relates to children whose education is provided under alternative provision arrangements when special educational provision other than in schools is in place or where arrangements have been made by the proprietor of the school that the child is attending. These children may be in scope of the children not in school registers, but the local authority will already hold this information, so there is no need for a duty to provide information that rests with the parents in those cases.

Amendment 233A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking, aims to push on what mandatory information local authority registers should contain. The only information required to be held on registers is that which is easily available to parents or obtainable by local authorities, and that is important for ascertaining the suitability of education and the safety of the child—such as the child’s name, their date of birth, address and details of education provided by the parent and others. We will talk on later groups about the way in which that information should be provided and the ease with which I hope it can be provided.

I turn now to Amendment 279, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nash, who made a strong case for the provisions in this legislation. His amendment aims to give local authorities the right to inspect the educational materials used by home educators and to view work that that child produces. Local authorities must consider a range of factors when assessing the suitability of a child’s education. One example of how they may conduct their inquiries into suitability is to request evidence of work samples. This position was confirmed in the Portsmouth judicial review case in 2021. If the local authority is not satisfied that the education is suitable based on the information received, it must usually serve a school attendance order, which requires the child to be enrolled at a school.

I turn to the Clause 31 stand part notice tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I hope the noble Lord was satisfied by my first speech on this group but, to summarise succinctly, we need an effective registration system so that local authorities can identify all children not in school and ensure that they are receiving suitable education and are safe. This is what Clause 31 will achieve.

The stand part notice tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, seeks to remove Clause 34 from the Bill. Clause 34 allows for statutory guidance to be provided to local authorities on how they should carry out their new duties in relation to the school attendance order process and children not in school registers. This guidance will provide local authorities with advice on how to exercise their new powers and responsibilities proportionately and consistently. For example, we would expect it to include further advice on how local authorities should request and conduct home visits.

As part of the implementation of the Bill, we will consult on the guidance to ensure that we hear from stakeholders that the measures will have an impact. It is necessary that the guidance is statutory to help ensure compliance with the advice within it. There will be considerable opportunity for further engagement on the details of that; the House will have the opportunity to consider it, because it will be subject to the affirmative resolution process.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made points on why all children need to be included on registers. To reiterate, we agree that home education is not in itself a safeguarding risk, but it can mean that children slip under the radar of the services that are there to protect them. Our consent measures are a proportionate solution which, as I have said, focuses on the small but important group of children for whom there are concerns about actual or likely significant harm. We will further discuss these issues later. The registers are about helping local authorities to discharge their existing duties to ensure that children are receiving a safe and suitable education.

Finally, with respect to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, about the child rights impact and the relationship with Wales, there is, to be clear, a child rights impact assessment produced by the Government for this piece of legislation, but Wales wanted to produce its own. That is the reason for the situation that the noble Baroness outlined.

For the reasons that I have outlined, and given the extensive discussions we have had as a forerunner for the further discussions that we will have, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments or stand part notices.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, if I might pick up the Minister on a couple of small issues, could she first confirm to the House that we will see a form of registration that will include every child? I thought that that was where we were going in Clause 4. She seemed to be talking about a register that includes only bits and pieces. In order for the local authority to know that it is not missing a child, can it use the provisions in Clause 4 and whatever comes out of that to connect to, as my noble friend said, what is going on in the benefits system and the NHS, in order to know that every child is in the system somewhere and to pick up cases where children are not being registered and seen?

Secondly, when it comes to flexi-schooling, is not the school absolutely in the best position to evaluate whether a child is receiving a proper education as a whole? A school has the power to discontinue flexi-schooling if that is not the case. Why do we want to insert a local authority official into a process when the school is in much the best place to take those decisions?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

If I have understood the noble Lord’s first point, it relates to whether the information-sharing provisions within this legislation will support the ability of local authorities to be able to track, so that they can ensure that children do not fall through the gaps. Of course that would be the case, but that in itself does not remove the requirement to ensure that, as he said, local authorities have information about where all children are receiving their education. The noble Lord is right that the intention of these clauses is that, obviously, if a child is receiving their education in school, it is clear and they are seen, but if they are not receiving their education in school for whatever reason, it is important that they are seen. The intention is that those are the children who should be included in the register of children not in school.

I take the noble Lord’s point about flexi-schooling, but it is possible to envisage, as I suggested, models of flexi-schooling where children are receiving part of their schooling at a school where they are registered and on the roll but are not receiving all of their schooling there. Therefore, the explanation of why they should be included in the register of children not in school is in order to have sight of the other part of their schooling. The other point that I made was that that would not necessarily require parents to provide additional information, because it may well be that the information about where that education provision is happening is known by the school. There is a range of different flexi-schooling arrangements and it is important that, in line with the helpful principle that the noble Lord set out at the beginning, we are able to see children and to see the education that they are receiving.

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this discussion. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for her support on the flexi-schooling amendments and the Minister for her response and her comprehensive statement earlier in the debate, which was helpful. The brief discussion that we have just had on flexi-schooling illustrates exactly the sort of point that is perhaps better discussed in one of those August meetings than now on the Floor of your Lordships’ House.

I will not detain noble Lords further. We have had a much fuller debate than perhaps I expected and I might have spoken at greater length at the start if I had known quite how large a debate we would have. I take this opportunity nevertheless to associate myself with the comments of my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Wei on the principles of this discussion.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, we have got to group 3, which is good. I start by addressing the Clause 30 stand part notice tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking. Clause 30 sets out the requirement that a child who is on a child protection plan, who is the subject of a Section 47 inquiry or who is registered at a special school cannot be removed from school to be home-educated without local authority permission.

We have set out clearly those instances—my noble friend did not necessarily agree that it was clear, but I hope that I will make it clear now—where children will fall within the scope of Clause 30 and so require consent in order to be home-educated. Specifically, it will apply to pupils in England who are of compulsory school age and for whom at least one of the following applies: the child attends a special school and they became a pupil at that school through arrangements made by the local authority; the child is subject to child protection inquiries under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989; or there is a child protection plan in place. The intent of the legislation is that, if you do not fall into one of those categories, you do not need to seek the consent of the local authority in order to home-educate your child. There is a narrow and specific group of children for whom Clause 30 suggests that their parents will need to seek the consent of the local authority.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister. She has lucidly identified what we now know is the correct position and I am very grateful to her.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The children who are subject to child protection inquiries and plans are among our most vulnerable and the children who attend special schools are likely to have the highest levels of need. It is necessary that local authority consent is sought in those scenarios to ensure that these children are safe and suitably educated.

Even then, Clause 30 does not mean that these eligible families will not be able to home-educate their children. We are simply requiring the local authority to take a closer look in those circumstances. It may, in any of those three categories, be wholly appropriate for those children to be educated at home, but it is also right, given the specific circumstances, that the local authority that has responsibility—or where those children live—looks at that case and gives consent for home education in those narrow categories of cases.

We want local authorities to know which children in their areas may be home-educated and to make an informed decision to determine what will be in the best interests of the child in those circumstances. Clause 30 is underpinned by a review process; I will return to that in a moment. Statutory guidance will also be published to help schools and local authorities to carry out their new duties consistently from authority to authority and in a proportionate way.

I turn to the specific amendments. Amendments 203A and 204, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wei and Lord Lucas, seek to remove the requirement for parents to obtain local authority consent to home-educate should their child attend a special school under arrangements of the local authority. The Government believe it is important to retain this requirement. We totally recognise that parents of children at special schools have their children’s best interests at heart, just like other parents. However, children in special schools often have very complex needs that would be difficult for their parents to provide for at home. The loss of the support the child receives in a special school may be a major upheaval in the child’s life. Clause 30 retains an additional check that there are no educational suitability issues resulting from the loss of this support and that home education would be in the child’s best interests. It is clear that this is a different nature of concern from that represented by Section 47 inquiries or a child protection plan.

Amendment 210, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, wants to specify a timeframe for the home education consent decision to be made. I wholly share the noble Lord’s desire for decisions to be undertaken as quickly as possible. We think that the current wording in the clause, “without undue delay”, ensures as prompt a turnaround as possible. If we had an arbitrary timeline for this process—28 days, for example—that would imply that every decision was as straightforward as any other. Timings are likely to be different, depending on the circumstances of the child. By necessity, because these are children who already have other needs and requirements, the process could be complex and will involve multi-agency collaboration and information-sharing to reach a decision.

Amendment 215A seeks to ensure that local authorities offer parents an information session on home education as part of the consent process. I agree it is important that the decision to home-educate is an informed one. But the duty to secure a suitable education rests with the parent, not the local authority. With this in mind, requiring local authorities to offer mandatory information sessions would not be appropriate. It is parents who should be taking responsibility for researching their educational choices. Parents should carefully consider their responsibilities and the financial implications of home-educating before requesting permission to withdraw their child from school. We will ensure that the department’s relevant guidance provides key information that a parent needs to consider when contemplating whether to home-educate. Local authorities and schools can signpost to this should they become aware of parental intentions to home-educate.

Amendment 219, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to require local authorities to provide a statement of reasons to parents when refusing a request for consent. As the noble Baroness suspected, it is the case that local authorities are already obliged to provide their rationale for such a decision. We intend to make this clear in the relevant statutory guidance, which will need to be updated so that relevant professionals know what is required of them.

Finally, Amendment 221, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, looks to provide a tribunal appeals process as a review in the case of a local authority’s decision to refuse to grant permission to home-educate a child. We do not believe that this amendment is necessary because Clause 30 already provides for a review process. Parents who disagree with the local authority’s decision to grant or refuse permission to home-educate their child can refer the decision to the Secretary of State for review. They will carefully consider the full facts of the case. Having done so, the Secretary of State has the power to either uphold the local authority’s decision, to direct the local authority to grant consent or to refer the question back to the local authority for review.

[Lord Wei (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister. I believe that this appeal process to the Secretary of State already exists. Clearly, it is a very difficult situation for the Secretary of State to be the tribunal for the parents, if the parents feel that the local authority or the Government have not been supportive of their desire to home-educate. I would be grateful if the Minister could let us know how many times, when a home-educated family has requested support from the Secretary of State to overturn a local authority decision, that has actually happened. According to the statistics I have, there has never been such an instance. I wonder whether, if this were to be tested in a court or by some other mechanism, this form of procedural appeal would not really muster the kind of belief that the Minister has. Might she reconsider looking into the various forms of appeal that we will propose in later groups of amendments, or indeed look again at the idea of a tribunal?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

This legislation introduces the consent process. People have not gone through this process, with the specific, narrow categories of children and families for whom it applies. Does the noble Lord want another go?

[Lord Wei (Con)]

I am referring to other instances, which home-educated families have referenced, where they have written to the Secretary of State for Education —under the current regime, not the future one—and where no action has ever been taken in their favour. Perhaps we can discuss this in August.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Let us not talk about what will happen and when in terms of engagement with my officials. Just to be clear: as I said at the beginning of my remarks, that engagement will enable noble Lords to get an understanding of the way the Government intend to implement these provisions and to get some assurance around the processes that will be used. It will not be another opportunity for noble Lords who fundamentally oppose what the Government are doing—I am thinking of the noble Lord, who started his contribution by saying that he fundamentally opposes what we are trying to do here. I am not sure that the engagement will be particularly helpful for persuading, through officials, the Government to wholly change their approach to this. As I said, it is intended to look at the detail and to provide some assurance about how the processes will work.

I will reiterate the point I made previously. Clause 30 is introducing a consent mechanism and, specifically, a review process of that consent mechanism. Home-educating parents may well have written on other issues to the Secretary of State and been dissatisfied with the response that they received. However, that is different from the review process that is spelled out in legislation in Clause 30.

I turn to the points made by my noble friend Lady Morris. She is right. She asks questions that are the subject of amendments to be debated in later groups, but they are very reasonable. She asked about how much time a child would need to study with a provider for it to be reported, and how often and how quickly parents would need to update the details about that. Those are precisely the types of issues that would be subject to the further consultation around the regulations and guidance, including with home-educating parents and others, to ensure that we do that in a way that balances the burdens and requirements on parents, alongside ensuring that the local authority has the basic information that it needs to make the scheme work properly. In this area, there is considerable scope for consultation and engagement about how precisely that will work. I hope that answers my noble friend’s question and that the noble Lord, Lord Wei, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her flexibility on the notification period, which in the Bill currently is 15 days. It is very nice to hear that the Government and my noble friend can be more flexible about it and are prepared to discuss it. I thank her very much indeed for that. I gave a very strong indictment against new Section 426C—

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Can I just clarify whether my noble friend is concluding the group or intervening on me?

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

In Committee, noble Lords may talk as many times as we like. We will try to keep it short though.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Does my noble friend want me to respond again? That is what I would like to know.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

I am getting up to thank the Minister for her willingness to consider the timetable for the notification by the schooling parent of any changes in the educational plan, which they will have had to give already in detail under new Section 426C(1)(e). I am asking her, as I did in my speech, whether she and the Government would be willing to look at the actual terms of subsection (e), which have been widely described as very onerous. I gave examples of that, such as the need to give details of Sunday schooling. I also pointed out that that type of information is not sought at all from parents with children at state schools. I remind her that, after the very successful meeting with the Minister, Stephen Morgan, on 17 June, I wrote a follow-up letter on 20 June, copying in my noble friend. I asked specifically whether the provisions in subsection (e) could be reviewed, with a schooling parent, to find a practical answer. I must suggest again that, in its present form, it is most onerous.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The questions that my noble friend asks are, I think, the subject of amendments in later groups, which is when I had presumed we would come to those details. I will stick to that, if that is okay.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for what she said. I entirely understand the limitations of discussions with officials, which is why I want to talk to her again about tribunals. Tribunals are an established part of mediating between the citizen and the state. In situations like this, or in many circumstances similar to those we are talking about—and this is by no means the only time we will discuss this; the next time will be when we are talking about best interests—when you have a hard-pressed local authority that may have a particular prejudice against home education and may be making life extremely difficult, as some of them do, you want an effective right of appeal. The system of appeal to the Secretary of State has existed in various forms in various bits of legislation for a long time. I am aware of one occasion when the Secretary of State agreed with the complainant. It does not work as an effective forum. It is not set up to be an effective forum. It does not allow for balanced and deep argument. The department is just not set up as a tribunal: it is not staffed as a tribunal, nor skilled as a tribunal. It is not the right place. I just say to my noble friend Lady Barran that I would very much appreciate her support for a tribunal amendment at Report, because that is what this appears likely to come to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, points out that intervention in schools can be a protection. The Government’s thinking about the future of this and the future interaction would be well worth hearing.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

In group 4, we have an interesting combination of some amendments suggesting that the Government are going too far in their proposals around the hurdle for having to seek consent to home-educate and others suggesting that they are not going far enough. I will try to find a way through the centre of this, because what they all have in common is seeking to explore the rationale for the local authority to have to provide consent before a parent can withdraw a child from school to home-educate—in this case, where the child is subject to a child protection inquiry

I turn to Amendments 205 and 206. Just to be clear, the Government believe that the consent measure with respect to Section 47 inquiries provides an important but proportionate safety net for children subject to child protection inquiries and plans. To clarify something that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said and to reiterate this, the consent provisions are not an automatic bar to these parents home-educating. It could well be the case that, notwithstanding the fact that a child was subject to Section 47 inquiries or even under a child protection plan, the local authority felt it was appropriate for, or was willing to give consent for, that child to be home-educated. To reiterate what I said, it is a requirement for the local authority to consider the circumstances of that child, given that they have come under the auspices of children’s social care through Section 47 of the Children Act. Our view is that this should be done as part of its wider decision-making on whether a child needs protection and the planning that follows that.

There is some suggestion, which I really disagree with, that local authorities would find it easy to jump to a Section 47 inquiry simply to prevent a parent being able to home-educate their child. There are a lot of consequences to undertaking a Section 47 inquiry. I would find it hard to understand why a local authority would be so keen to prevent a parent home-educating if there were no reasons to stop them or want to get itself into the burdens around a Section 47 inquiry if it did not think it was important to do that. Of course, it is not just what a local authority believes about the circumstances of a child. For a child to be the subject of a Section 47 inquiry, they will have already hit a threshold of actual or likely significant harm. That is a high threshold. An inquiry should certainly not be initiated purely because a parent has decided to home-educate.

I note the understandable concern of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about how this measure could be used in an abusive relationship, where false or malicious allegations regarding the safety of a child, for example, might be made to continue to control or harass an individual. The sad reality, of course, is that it is not only with respect to issues about home education that that might happen. It could happen, and does happen, in many circumstances where local authorities are making decisions about children. For that reason, we are confident that this would not be something unusual or unheard of for local authorities, and that they do have robust policies and processes in place to consider information and evidence about child protection concerns, including recognising and handling malicious allegations. Perhaps the noble Lord could be provided with some more examples of how local authorities would handle this type of circumstance, to provide some reassurance. Given that a child will be the subject of a Section 47 inquiry only where there is actual or likely significant harm, it is reasonable that checks should be undertaken before such a child can be removed from school for home education.

Amendment 207, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, focuses on bringing all children receiving support and services under Section 17 of the Children Act, known as “children in need”, and any child who has ever been the subject of a child protection plan in the past into the scope of the consent measure. We share her commitment to ensuring that all children are protected from harm, and recognise that, while home education is not an inherent safeguarding risk, it can of course mean that some children could slip under the radar. However, we believe that this amendment would be disproportionate. “Children in need” is a very broad group of children and many will receive services which are nothing to do with safeguarding concerns or particular educational needs.

I think the noble Baroness was suggesting that there might be ways in which it would be possible to have a definition that looked at different elements of Section 17 concerns, and perhaps I can come back to her on that point. I think one of her reasons for suggesting it is that she understands, of course, that, for example, all children with disabilities are automatically included under Section 17. We certainly would not want to suggest here that any child with disabilities whose parents wanted to home-educate them would necessarily need to seek consent. I also draw her attention to the deliverability of a measure that includes both children in need and children subject to child protection activity in the consent measure.

In the year to the end of March 2024, there were 399,500 children in need, compared with 224,520 child protection inquiries and 49,900 children on child protection plans. As noble Lords can see, it would be both disproportionate and overly burdensome on local authorities to make a consent decision for every parent who wished to withdraw their child from school for home education where that child is receiving help under Section 17: it would be roughly a doubling of the potential number of children who might need it.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

From memory, are there not 400-and-something thousand children with an EHCP who will be within the kind of consent framework? Obviously, the vast majority of the 400,000 children who are under Section 17 are not going to be home-educated. I take the noble Baroness’s point; I am just trying to say that we have one group that is in and another group, where we suspect potential abuse or neglect, that is out. That just feels like an odd split.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I recognise that point. On the special school point, it is not sufficient to have an EHCP to need consent to withdraw your child to home-educate; it is if they are in a special school. The rationale there is that you are changing their schooling and removing them, by definition, from something that contains very specific levels of support, otherwise it would not be a special school. It is the consideration of that impact that is the reasoning behind the special school intention here.

So we are confident that the consent measure, as drafted, is focused on the right groups of children and that it is proportionate. I hope that I have demonstrated the proportionality of this measure and that it is part of a wider set of activities that we have discussed previously on the Bill, about strengthening requirements to protect children at the earliest opportunity. I hope therefore that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Even more briefly, I did not hear the Minister’s response in relation to children who have been on a child protection plan. Could she be very kind and write to me, in the interests of time, because that is also extremely important?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, I recognise that. There are still questions about burden there, but I understand the noble Baroness’s point, and particularly her reference to the Sara Sharif case. On that case, we are still awaiting the detailed review from the safeguarding panel in order to be able to determine the causes there, but I understand her point and will write to her about that specific group of children.

On that basis, I hope noble Lords will feel able to withdraw or not move their amendments.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her replies. I look forward to meetings after today to go into these matters further, but I very much understand what my noble friend Lady Barran is saying with her Amendment 207. It convinces me that, if we can insert a tribunal into this process, we will make all these difficult questions flow much more easily for everybody. However, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, there is a large number of probing amendments in this group and, in the interests of making progress, I will not comment on most of them. I am very sympathetic to the intent behind Amendment 209 in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. I would hope very much that a child who is a young carer would be supported to stay in school, given the obvious risk that their education would suffer and conflict with the care needs of their parent if at home, but I have no further comments on the other amendments in this group.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Turning to Amendments 216 and 217—

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Wei (Con)]

To clarify, I was in no way saying that men could not work with women in childbirth. I was trying to make a point about speaking as authoritatively on the process of giving birth as a man as if you were a woman. In no way would I want the Minister to interpret me as saying that one could not be a male midwife or anything like that, but, as some of us know, when in certain circles I have talked about something feeling like childbirth, I have quite rightly been told off, because I have never given birth. There is something about that lived experience that I am pointing to. I am not making the point that people cannot work in certain professional settings in that sense.

We are crossing over from professional expertise into lived experience, saying that a parent can or cannot raise their child and parent-educate. Even if you were to use the professional argument, I am not sure that having that determined by someone who may not have that experience—when, right now, even the professional in this context is not trained in the philosophies and the different nuances of home education—is quite right in this context.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I certainly think it is right that we should attempt to ensure that people with lived experience are a key part of all areas of policy. That is why, for example, I talked earlier about the home educators’ forum that the department has brought together to help to inform our work here and the guidance. The point that the noble Lord was making went well beyond that. The suggestion that you could not make a professional social work or education decision in this area unless you had lived experience would make this area wholly different from any other area that professionals were making decisions about, and that is the stumbling block for this amendment.

We have a workforce of trained, dedicated practitioners who understand and champion the needs of the children they work with across schools and children’s social care. These amendments, in effect, would exclude around 99% of the population and, of course, would assume that one professional’s experience of home education is reflective of all parents. Working Together guidance is clear which practitioners should be involved in safeguarding decision-making and the importance of including children and families in that as well. We are confident that the Bill measures, and wider children’s social care reform that strengthens the protection of children, will mean that local authorities can draw on a range of expertise when making decisions—and so they should.

Amendment 220 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 224 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would allow a child not to attend school prior to receiving consent from the local authority. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who was not here for the earlier parts of the debate—for which I do not condemn her—that the points she made about the very successful home education experience of the children she was talking about who are close to her has very much been reflected in the comments that other noble Lords made earlier. We are clear that there are many children for whom home education has been a very fulfilling and successful process, and there is nothing in this legislation that removes, for example, the right of parents to make that decision to educate their children at home.

With these consent provisions, however—and in wanting to ensure that if a child is being educated at home, they are at least seen and understood to be being educated elsewhere than in school—we want to make sure that every child is seen. That is the expression that we were using earlier, and that is what we are aiming to do here. Also with respect to the consent provisions, we are concerned about those children for whom there might be particular reasons for a local authority to look carefully at the decision to grant consent by virtue of them being subject to a Section 47 inquiry, under a child protection plan or requiring the specific facilities of a special school.

For many children, a school is a protective environment and a means of offering essential support. I know that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness share our desire to reduce the risk of children falling through gaps and potentially going missing. It is therefore important that a child continues to attend school until a local authority has determined the consent request. Removing a child before this could subject them to unsuitable education or increase the risk of harm. I am sure that the noble Baroness could envisage a situation where, for legitimate reasons, a Section 47 inquiry is instituted where there are concerns about a child being at risk of very significant harm and—I am afraid that we have seen examples of this—a parent, thinking that this would be a way of avoiding it, decides at that point that they want to remove their child from school. In those circumstances, I do not think that any of us would want that child to be removed from what may well be the protective environment of a school before the decision had been made about consent.

For all children who are not subject to the consent process, which will be the vast majority of children whose parents want to home-educate them, all we are expecting is that the parent notifies the school that they want to remove their child from the roll and that the school has the opportunity to check, therefore, whether they fall within the criteria of a child for whom consent would be necessary or whether they are subject to a school attendance order. It would not be unreasonable to expect a child to carry on attending school while that relatively straightforward administrative check was made.

Amendment 222, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would require consent decisions to be revisited sooner than six months after the previous request when new evidence becomes available or the child has been disadvantaged by the decision. This six-month timeframe is proportionate and is provided to reduce multiple requests regarding the same child. There will be situations where it may be appropriate for the local authority to consider applications sooner—for example, if there has been a substantial change in the child’s circumstances. A local authority can do this under the clause as drafted, if it so wishes. I am sure that the noble Lord could also envisage a situation where a parent who was unhappy about the consent decision made by a local authority expected the decision to be revisited perhaps every week. That is the reason for setting this timeframe.

Amendment 223 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, is about establishing an independent ombudsman. I understand the theme that is developing here about independent review capacity. Notwithstanding that, the Government do not believe that it is necessary. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, uses almost every opportunity to push his tribunal suggestion. I am interested in whether the proposition now is that we should have both a tribunal and an ombudsman in these cases. Of course it is right that there should be a process for referring local authority decisions that parents are not satisfied with; however, it should be uncomplicated. It is right that the final decision should rest with the Secretary of State, or Welsh Ministers, who will fully and objectively consider the merits of the case.

Amendment 225, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would remove the definition of the “relevant local authority” that is responsible for making a home education consent decision. For children subject to a child protection inquiry or plan, the local authority where a child lives is responsible for making the consent decision. They will have the information needed to make informed decisions and should therefore determine consent. For children in special schools, who are not also subject to child protection processes, consent is needed from the local authority that maintains the plan, just as is the case under existing legislation. This new subsection provides legal clarity for parents, schools and local authorities.

Amendment 403, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, requests emergency court hearings for parents where a local authority seeks to remove, or removes, a child from their parents due to concerns arising from home education. To reiterate, the Children Act 1989 is clear that the threshold for care proceedings is significant harm. Home education as a singular factor would not reach the threshold for care proceedings. Child protection concerns about a home-educated child must be addressed through the same process as any other child facing harm. This includes parents’ rights to challenge decisions about the removal of a child into care.

Finally, Amendment 418, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would require local authorities to refer individuals who file false or malicious allegations against home-educating parents, who then may be subject to civil penalties. There is a concern that this could deter valid concerns about home-educated children being reported, potentially leaving children at risk. Local authorities have robust processes in place to identify whether a child is suffering, or likely to suffer, harm and appropriately respond to malicious allegations, regardless of a child’s educational status.

I said earlier that it would not only be in the case of home-educated children that a local authority might have to make a decision about whether a complaint about a child’s parents was well founded or malicious. Home-educating parents have the same rights as other parents. Families can seek support from the local authority or police advice if intentional false reports are being made against them.

For the reasons I have outlined, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I am grateful for the Minister’s extensive responses to the amendments. She is right that I will keep coming back about tribunals. I am not attached to any particular form—a tribunal, an ombudsman or what the Government propose. My concern is that it should be effective, and my experience of the Secretary of State route has been that it is not. I am very happy to take the opportunity of the gap between now and 1 September to learn more about the Government’s proposals as to how the Secretary of State route should work, and it may be that I will come to love it as much as she does—that would be nice.

On Amendment 208, knowing a child’s address is not the same as knowing their local authority. There is nothing in the address that says what the local authority is; you need to have a lookup. Local education authorities are not necessarily coterminous with what we think, so the Government would have to provide a lookup. Also, in circumstances where children are in joint custody, the question of their address can be complicated and moot. In both circumstances, there needs to be some help from the Government to enable a school to be sure that, in all circumstances, it determines the right local authority with responsibility. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The noble Lord is right and I am grateful to him for again drawing my attention and that of the Committee to his drafting. I guess one would then need to consider the group of children in special schools, because I would be surprised if the noble Lord’s drafting applied to so many of them.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

At the heart of this group of amendments is the concern about the use and definition of the expression “best interest of the child”.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others suggested that the use of the “best interests” ground in Clause 30 is a fundamental change to parents’ rights. I reiterate the quite narrow scope of the use of “best interests” in this clause. Remember that what we are dealing with here is not the fundamental decision about whether a parent has the right to remove their child from a school to educate them at home. They have that right, unless some very specific circumstances are met—when they may still have the right, but we introduce a process for the local authority to consent to whether it is appropriate for that to happen. I do not think I need to run through once again that narrow category of children and circumstances where, as we are proposing here, the local authority should be enabled at least to consider the issue of whether, in those circumstances, it is appropriate for the child to be removed from school.

I know that some noble Lords do not believe that there should be any need for consent and therefore do not believe that the criteria that the Government have chosen of Section 47 inquiries, child protection plans or special schools are appropriate. I accept that but, if you do have a consent system—and there is quite a lot of support for the idea that an additional stage is appropriate for children in these circumstances—you then need to decide the criteria for the local authority’s decision-making. New subsection (6)(b) makes it clear what those criteria should be in these very specific circumstances.

It does not feel unreasonable to me that those criteria should be what the local authority believes to be the best interests of the child. We can assume that the parents believe in the best interests of their child, but in these very specific circumstances, because of the nature of the children, we think the child’s rights might override the view of their parents.

So the first criterion is what is in the child’s best interests; the second is whether or not there are suitable arrangements made for the child to receive education, other than at school. I understand that some noble Lords do not believe that those are the right criteria, but I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that this is somehow a fundamental change in the rights of parents. We recognise that most parents have their children’s best interests at heart and tirelessly advocate for them, often in difficult circumstances. That should be the basis on which parents are able to make decisions, in most circumstances, about whether or not their children are removed from school to be educated otherwise.

However, there are situations where a child could receive a suitable education at home but it is not in their best interests to do so—for example, if there are concerns that the child is being exposed to domestic abuse or extremism. In those cases, the school can act as a protective factor that enables issues to be escalated quickly.

I hope that my argument about the reason for the choice of those criteria also covers the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. He recommends that a local authority should automatically refuse consent for any child where the local authority has concluded that they are suffering or likely to suffer significant harm following a child protection inquiry, but child protection is complex and practitioners must gather a range of information and evidence from multiagency partners and others who work with the child and their family, and children can experience harm from both inside and outside the home. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to prohibit all such children from being removed from school for home education.

The consent measure rightly requires the local authority to consider the individual circumstances of each child. It is probably worth reminding ourselves that the consent measure is not preventing parents in these circumstances from home-educating; it is simply saying that the local authority should consider whether that is appropriate and use the two criteria that have been set out in the Bill.

Amendment 212, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei—

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

I think I understand the Minister’s points, but could I just pick up the slightly pedantic point that I was making? If it is an “or”, it implies that suitable arrangements could be made for the education of the child otherwise than at school and that the local authority still considers that it would be in the child’s best interest to receive education by regular attendance at school. It is a slightly pedantic point and I am very happy to just register it rather than require an answer. As I say, I think it is the law of the excluded middle.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I understand the noble Lord’s point. If I am wrong on this then I will clarify afterwards, but you could envisage a situation where the problem was not the nature of the education being provided but whether, given the circumstances that the child found themselves in, it was in their best interests not to be in a school. The protective element of being in a school could be the most important point there.

[Lord Wei (Con)]

To build on that, if you had a local authority officer with not much experience of home education—given that that is apparently not available—who is shown suitable education arrangements by the parent planning to take their child into home education, then that first new sub-paragraph could allow them still to override those arrangements, which they have agreed are suitable, by saying that they think it would be best if the child attended a school. How do we deal with that precise situation which she has said could happen? Do we not need to work this out so that our wonderful local authority officials are not confused when reading this guidance and say, “Well, I can still override the parents because I think it is right that they stay in school, because that is in their best interests”?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

That is what I was saying. You could envisage circumstances in which there is a child on a child protection plan, notwithstanding that there might be suitable education, where the protective role of being in school would be in that child’s best interests and being away from the school might be against them, regardless of what the other education provision might be. Let us not forget that this would be a consideration only for children for whom there are child protection concerns or for children in special schools, where, to be fair, it would more likely be about the appropriateness of the education, but could be about the other support available for a child that would not be available in other circumstances, notwithstanding the question of education, because of their needs that required them to be put into the special school in the first place.

[Lord Wei (Con)]

I can fully appreciate that, given the scope here, if there was a safeguarding concern then one might want to pursue the route the Minister is talking about as the officer in question is trying to make that decision. However, the way that this is worded, even if the parents or family subject to Section 47 have found a way to provide suitable education, gives the officer the room to say, “I am concerned about the safety of the child”, when it is more that they do not like the education being provided.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I think I might speak for others in the Committee in saying that this level of detail could be better dealt with face to face with officials, which would allow us to do another group before the House rises.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Amendment 212, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to raise the threshold for the local authority to refuse consent to home-educate. This would mean that, if a parent was concerned that their child was being harmed by attending their current school, the local authority would be unable to refuse consent unless it provided evidence of a standard sufficient to satisfy a court that withdrawal would result in greater harm.

Let me be clear that parents’ concerns regarding bullying or their child’s mental health are serious, and these issues should be discussed with the school and local authority. I can quite understand why parents might want to remove their child from school in those circumstances.

However, it is important to remember that the requirement for local authorities to consent to home education relates to a specific set of children who are subject to a child protection plan or inquiry or who are in a special school. This measure is intended to ensure that the local authority takes a considered, proportionate and informed decision for these groups. Eligible children should not be withdrawn from school for home education if it is not in their best interests or if education outside school is not going to be suitable. I want to be clear that local authorities must evidence their decision-making, but requiring it to the degree that the amendment suggests is totally impractical. Local authorities are well placed to make this best interests and suitability judgment. They possess the required information and have access to multi-agency expertise as part of their child protection and education duties, and parents’ views will be taken into account by local authorities as part of their decision-making process.

Amendment 215, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to ensure that a refusal to grant consent to home-educate is taken against the background of the characteristics of the school that the child might attend. Just to be clear, the consent process is not intended to keep children in a specific school or to keep children in a school that is not right for them. Parents remain free to remove their child from one school to attend a different school that they believe can better support their child’s needs, for example. I hope that assures the noble Lord that there is no intention that a child could or should be forced to remain in a specific school, so the need to compare different schools is unnecessary. I hope noble Lords feel that I have provided sufficient assurance and that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Yes, I would very much like to pursue some of the details of this in meetings. The practicalities of what she described do not coincide with my experience of trying to get children moved from one school to another, particularly special schools. I do not see how it works. She described local authorities as fountainheads of expertise in this area. That is not my experience. It used to be, but not now. These are areas in which I really want to understand more about the Government’s reasoning and how they are approaching things.

There is a deep principle here. It is only a small footprint on the first bit of beach, but the direction is clear. If it applies to children with SEN, why does it not apply to everybody? If the local authority’s judgment is better for those children, why is it not better for everybody? If the local authority’s judgment is best for children who are being taken out of school, why is it not best for children who never go into school? There is no edge here. Once this direction has been taken, it will carry on, and we must question it hard at its first instance and not shy away from that just because it is small. But for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, all the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, ably presented by my noble friend Lord Lucas, seek exemptions from or exceptions to the basic principle that there should be a register of children not in school. Rightly, my noble friend stressed the importance of the relationship between the local authority and home-educating parents. As other noble Lords pointed out, the Government need to take great care in this legislation so that the requirements set out in the Bill do not inadvertently damage that relationship and potential trust.

Having said that, I cannot support these amendments and their aim to find exemptions. First, at its simplest, the point of the register is to ensure that a local authority knows which children are not in school and, obviously, the amendments would undermine that. Secondly, one of the key points of the register, as I understand it, is that it would allow home-educating parents who need support from the local authority to access that support. Again, excluding these children would prevent that. Finally, these amendments assume that in these conditions it may indeed be preferable to educate the child at home. Even if this is the case in the majority, if not the vast majority, of cases, it remains reasonable and proportionate to record that that child is not in school.

With regard to Amendments 234 and 238, my noble friend Lord Lucas raised the important point of principle that the information collected should be proportionate, which, in simple terms, means that the local authority needs to actually use that information, as my noble friend said in his opening remarks, rather than just record it. The Government’s proposals for the information collected go a lot further than the legislation we brought forward in 2022. I share the doubts of my noble friend Lord Lucas and other noble Lords as to whether it is all necessary.

Going back to the point about the relationship between the local authority and parents, a good test for this legislation, and one I tried to use when we debated the 2022 Bill, is that the legislation needs to feel fair to parents. There is a risk that the amount of information and detail being requested could feel unfair and damage that relationship with the local authority, which is so important. I hope very much that when the noble Baroness closes, she will be able to reassure the Committee that that is not the case.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Wei, Lord Lucas and Lord Crisp, my noble friend Lord Hacking and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for taking time over the summer to meet my officials. Having the opportunity to discuss in detail with noble Lords how the provisions for children not in school are intended to work in practice was extremely beneficial and instructive. I am giving careful consideration to some of the finer details of the provisions with which noble Lords have indicated that they are not wholly satisfied.

I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that in government we have worked well and closely with home educators, who are rightly challenging on many of the issues that noble Lords have raised in the debate. Just to be completely clear, we know that the home education community is diverse and varied. Home education can take place in all walks of life, in cities or the countryside, and be delivered by those with professional teaching experience and those without. It often delivers an excellent education to children, but it is important that the registers work as intended. They should not encroach on the ability to home-educate.

I have said previously in these debates and will continue to say that we wholly recognise the right of parents to educate their children outside schools. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said, it must be possible for local authorities to identify all children not in school to ensure that they are receiving a full-time, suitable education. That oversight should be underpinned by local authorities engaging positively with home educators. That is why the Bill also places a new duty on local authorities to provide advice and information when requested to do so by parents. The registers should give us a clearer picture of not only how and where children are being educated but also how local authorities engage with and support children not in school and their families. This information will support the department to identify best practice and consider how it can potentially be replicated across authorities to build strong, trusting relationships with parents.

I recognise the point made by several noble Lords that it is important that we ensure that these relationships are maintained and built on the basis of trust and a sense that what is being asked for by the Government is reasonable. We will, as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said, use this information to support and direct local authorities to ensure that that is happening, not, as I know some people fear, to prevent parents from home-educating, but to make sure that that relationship is based on a recognition of the best interests of children and of the right of parents to educate their children at home as long as they are providing a suitable education in doing that. The department will and has stepped in where local authority practice is wrong or overbearing.

Speaking in particular on the amendments in group one, these amendments seek to limit which children must be registered on local authority children not in school registers and to reduce the mandatory information that is requested from parents for the registers. This group seeks to do that on account of evidence provided by the parents or the circumstances of the child or parents. I will respond first to all the amendments dealing with which children should be included on registers: Amendments 231, 232, 233, 318, 321 and 322. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, a key objective of the registers is to aid local authorities in their existing duty to identify, as far as possible, all children in their areas who are not registered pupils in school and who are not receiving a suitable full-time education. Exempting eligible children from inclusion increases the risk of a local authority failing to identify a child who may be receiving an unsuitable education.

While I do not agree with the amendments, I appreciate the intention behind them, but I am afraid that the logic does not track even in terms of the arguments made by noble Lords. For example, to exempt children of parents with formal teaching qualifications from registration, as per Amendment 233, or children of parents who have submitted a portfolio annually demonstrating suitable education, as per Amendment 231, the local authority would need to know of the children and to record details of their parents, which might be even more cumbersome than the requirements that this legislation is asking for.

Amendments 318 and 322 seek to exempt children from rural areas, unless safeguarding concerns are present, or children from nomadic families as long as education is provided. This would still require the local authority having knowledge of these children in order to make these assessments. A registration system is the obvious solution to collect an appropriate level of information about a child’s circumstances, as my noble friend Lady Whitaker identified.

Amendment 231 seeks exemption for inclusion in the registers should the parent have previously demonstrated suitable education through an annual portfolio, while Amendment 232 seeks exemption if the parent has previously home-educated a child who progressed to university, employment or vocational training. Just because a parent has previously demonstrated suitable education, has previously home-educated a child who progressed to further or higher education, or holds certain qualifications, it does not necessarily follow that the child will receive a suitable education indefinitely or at all. Furthermore, exempting children on the basis of one measure of ability, such as achieving the status of a chess grandmaster, as per Amendment 321, offers little reassurance that the child is in suitable education overall or is safe.

I turn now to the amendments in this grouping concerning the mandatory information that is requested from parents to be held on local authority registers: Amendments 234 and 238. We will, in our debates on later groups, talk further about the nature of this information. The information required of parents is necessary to build an accurate understanding of who is involved in a child’s education and where this education is taking place. Let me be absolutely clear: the only information required to be held on registers is information which is easily available to parents and obtainable by local authorities and which is considered necessary for ascertaining suitability of education and safety of the child. This includes basic information such as the child’s name, date of birth and address, as well as high-level details of education provided by the parent and others. We will go into this in more detail but, to be absolutely clear in relation to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, of course this would not require daily, weekly or even monthly reports from parents. That is absolutely not the intention here. We do not believe that this basic information is overly burdensome for parents to provide or for local authorities to request and maintain.

Amendment 234, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would mean that parents would not be under a duty to provide information for registers. We know that many local authorities already maintain registers and that some parents voluntarily provide information for these, but the status quo is not good enough. It is currently too easy for children to slip under the radar. If a child has never attended a school or has recently moved to a new local authority area, for example, the local authority may be unaware that the child is in its area and not attending school. We need to be certain that local authorities are aware of all children not in school in their areas so that they can identify which children are missing education and are therefore in need of support. A parental duty to give information is the only way to achieve this. This requirement is proportionate and brings the process in England and Wales to the same level as that in the majority of other countries. In some cases, it would in fact be much less intrusive and much more supportive of home education than in many other countries.

I hope that noble Lords will permit me a brief digression to clarify a point of confusion—I know that this has been raised by and is concerning parents—regarding the consequence for parents failing to provide information for registers. If a parent does not supply the required information, they are not subject to a fine. Instead, the consequence of failing to provide information is that the local authority may, at its discretion, issue a notice requiring the parent to satisfy the local authority that their child is receiving a suitable education.

As is the case now, should the parent fail to do this and it is expedient for the child to attend school, the local authority must then issue a school attendance order, requiring the child to attend school. If the parent breaches that order and cannot prove in court that the child is being suitably educated, only then will they be found guilty of an offence and could be subject to a fine imposed at the magistrates’ court’s discretion. Again, it is important to reiterate that the school attendance order process that would be used here is an existing process and that the fines for breaching an order are completely avoidable through compliance. With this in mind, the number of families ultimately subject to a fine for breaching an order will be low compared to the overall number of orders issued.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have heard, the amendments in this group concern the sharing and protection of information on the registers. I can completely understand concerns about the collection and processing of data, and I hope to provide in my response some of the reassurances that noble Lords seek. But we must also be clear that we must not make them a barrier to legitimate information sharing. The recording and sharing of relevant information on children can be life-saving and, as we have discussed, children not in school registers will support local authorities to keep accurate records of eligible children, identifying those who require support and facilitating better co-ordination between support services, as well as enabling them to fulfil the requirement to understand where children are receiving education outside school.

Amendment 235, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to ensure that local authorities are not required to collect information on their registers that would be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Our published ECHR memorandum outlines the position on this, and we are confident that the provisions in the Bill are compatible.

I turn to Amendments 236 and 236A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 254A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. As with Amendment 238, which I spoke to on the previous group, these amendments seek to place exemptions on the requirement for registers to contain certain information on the child’s parents. I have outlined why that information is vital, but I appreciate that noble Lords have tabled these amendments based on concerns that some parents are estranged from their families for reasons such as domestic abuse. Recognising that concern, we have engaged with organisations that support domestic abuse survivors on our proposals and will continue to do so as part of their implementation.

Organisations like Women’s Aid have long called for the introduction of children not in school registers. Indeed, this is one of the recommendations it has made as part of its Nineteen More Child Homicides report published in June this year. If a parent could pose a risk to the child, it is even more crucial that authorities have this information. Holding information such as where the parent lives and whether they are providing education to the child, as well as time spent in such education, could help the local authority to identify the frequency and nature of the contact the child has with the parent. This could feed into a local authority’s assessment of whether a child is at risk of harm or is likely to be receiving an unsuitable education, so that further action can be taken if needed. Without evidence that a child may be at risk, it is difficult for authorities to intervene.

But I understand the concerns of parents, and I want to respond to that. Just to be clear, parents who have fled domestic abuse should be reassured that they will not be required to seek out the details of the other parent. They need to provide only the information that they know. But I will be clear about how we can ensure that the register will not reveal, for example, the whereabouts of a parent who has escaped abuse. Data protection protocols will help to ensure that all those on the register are safe. Specifically, in cases where a known abuser has made a subject access request regarding their child, the local authority, as data controller, can make determinations, considering the facts of the case, including safeguarding concerns.

I and my colleagues in the other place are clear on the importance of ensuring that all appropriate safeguards can be in place for victims of domestic abuse. We will continue to work with organisations with expertise in domestic abuse to ensure that all necessary protections can be built into the guidance that we will produce.

Linked to this but on a slightly different issue, Amendment 266, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, and Amendment 265, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, concern information from local authority registers being published. Let me be clear that local authorities will not be able to publish from their registers the name or address of an eligible child or their parent or any information that could lead to their identities being deduced. The Bill contains a provision in new Section 436C(5) explicitly preventing it. However, it is important that local authorities can publish information relating to their home education cohorts—in fact, I think that in later groups some noble Lords will be asking for further information along these lines—in terms of numbers, reasons for home education, and demographics. That will aid transparency in terms of how each local authority is undertaking its duties. We will ensure that regulations made in relation to this setting out whether and how registered details may be published will be subject to public consultation, and they will also be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Amendment 267 in the name of my noble friend Lady Whitaker and Amendment 273 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would require the destruction of all data in relation to a child held on children not in school registers upon that child turning 18 or re-enrolling in school. I assure noble Lords that data protection laws are clear that data must not be kept longer than necessary and must be retained only when there is a lawful basis. Entries on the register will therefore be deleted prior to a child turning 18 as a child is eligible to be included on the register only if they are of compulsory school age. As my noble friend alluded to, some information may need to be retained on other local authority records for a longer period; for example, a looked-after child remains with their local authority until they are 25, and it is crucial to hold some historical information as part of education and safeguarding inquiries. Current laws already allow this.

Amendment 275, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, and Amendments 268 and 375, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to ensure that parents are notified of any data breaches that occur as part of the children not in school measures and are able to claim compensation, and that local authorities are liable for the consequences of breaches. UK GDPR already sets out that a local authority must report a notifiable personal data breach to the Information Commissioner’s Office within 72 hours and to the affected individuals “without undue delay” where there is high risk that they are adversely affected by the breach. Families who have suffered damage as a result have a right to claim compensation from the local authority, which may also face fines or regulatory action.

Amendment 305, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendments 272 and 328, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to restrict or remove the powers relating to the use and sharing of data on the registers. As I suggested earlier, local authorities and the department need to collate and share register information, often at speed, with relevant persons, to fulfil duties related to the education, safeguarding or welfare of a child. Requiring written parental consent in every case, as Amendment 272 would do, would potentially prevent children receiving support in situations where swift action is vital. New Section 436F inserted by the Bill makes it clear with whom data from the registers may be shared and under which circumstances.

For example, local authorities may share information with those persons and organisations listed in Section 11(1) of the Children Act 2004 if appropriate to do so for the purposes of promoting or safeguarding the education and welfare of children. These include organisations, such as the NHS, which are a central component of either local multi-agency safeguarding arrangements or national efforts to protect children. If there is information on registers that can aid these organisations in protecting or promoting the welfare of a child, I am sure noble Lords will agree that it is important that it is shared. In relation to Amendment 328, I reassure noble Lords that immigration authorities do not feature in any of these categories.

Amendment 297, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to remove the requirement for out-of-school education providers to provide local authorities with the names, dates of birth and home addresses of children who are attending their provision above a prescribed threshold. We will talk about the provider duty in more detail later but, in effect, this amendment would remove the provider duty, which is, we argue, crucial in supporting local authorities both to identify children who should be on registers but are not and to cross-check records for children already on registers. There is no way for local authorities to achieve this without asking for basic identifying information.

Amendment 504, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would delay the commencement of the children not in school registers until the National Cyber Security Centre or an equivalent body certifies them. The Government already conduct extensive internal and external assurance processes to ensure that systems are safe and secure before launch. To support local authorities in meeting their data protection obligations under the measures, we will issue guidance that promotes best practice for keeping parents’ and children’s information secure.

Finally, I turn to the stand part notice in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which would oppose Clause 33 standing part of the Bill. As I have outlined in responding to this group, Clause 33 ensures that the processing of personal information as required or enabled by the Bill does not contravene the Data Protection Act 2018. It promotes the highest standards of data security and transparency. I hope that that provides your Lordships—and parents—with some assurance. I also hope that noble Lords will feel able to agree that this clause should stand part of the Bill and that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will withdraw Amendment 235.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that thoughtful response. I will pick up anything with which I disagree—I did not notice anything —later.

I want to say just one thing on Amendment 504. The Government created this cybersecurity centre—because the risks, the techniques and the availability of those techniques are moving so quickly, particularly with artificial intelligence—so that the best possible expertise is available to government departments. Time and again, though, they do not use it. In a recent case with which I have been dealing, DSIT got a chunk of its vital core code developed in Romania. It is not secure to do that; you do not know what it is doing and who it is doing it for. The way in which devices were secured was not up to scratch either. This resource is there as part of government. It should be used by departments, which cannot in all reason keep up with the latest threat and techniques, to be sure of what they are doing when it comes to security. It really is the best thing that can be done, so I encourage the Minister to get the department to take advantage of that facility.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will keep my remarks brief and focus on my own amendments in this group as I know that we have a very ambitious target to complete today; that noble Lords came in early to do this; and that we have had a well-informed debate already. My Amendments 239, 243, 249 and 260 were supported and elegantly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, with support from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp.

Amendment 239 would remove the requirement to specify the time spent by each parent educating their child, which was described by your Lordships as potentially redundant information.

Amendment 243 would set a minimum threshold of six hours weekly to avoid parents having to record every piano lesson and burdening local authorities with a volume of information that they cannot realistically assess. It has many similarities to Amendment 254B. I would not quibble with the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, as his amendment was very well drafted, but the spirits of the two amendments have much in common.

Amendment 249 would exclude weekend and holiday activities so that we bring home-educated children into line with those at school, where we would not dream of asking how they spend their weekends and holidays. Again, we do not want every visit to the Royal Institution —however fascinating—or every swimming lesson being shared with the local authority.

Finally, Amendment 260—the “scoop it all up” amendment, as my noble friend Lady Berridge described it—seeks to remove the ability of the Secretary of State to require any additional information that they see fit to be included in the register. This is an important point of principle because it leaves the door completely open for a future Secretary of State to behave in a way that many of your Lordships might consider unreasonable and unfair. It is excessive—belt and braces—and the Minister may want to reconsider it.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a good debate on this group—interestingly, with some rather different perspectives on the nature of the extent to which information should be included on the register. Let me deal with the range of points, I hope, as reassuringly and informatively as I can.

Amendment 235A was introduced by my noble friend Lord Hacking, although it seems that it had several parents—I will try to respond to the principles of it—and Amendment 239 is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. These amendments would mean that registers would be required to contain the names and addresses of only the parents who are taking responsibility for the education of the child, rather than details of all parents of the child. Parents would also not need to provide information on how much time their child spends receiving education from each parent.

As I said in relation to Amendment 238 from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the reason why both parents’ details are needed is because, by law, each parent has an equal responsibility for securing a suitable education for their child. This remains the case even if a parent is not providing the education themselves and is instead securing other providers to do so. Although I understand the intention behind these amendments, I worry that they would result in local authorities being unable to obtain necessary information.

My noble friend Lord Hacking gave a harrowing example in relation to access to information on the registers. I had hoped that my comments in our debate on the previous group had given some assurances around the control of and requirements for confidentiality around the register, which will provide some reassurance on that. Additionally, I am concerned that Amendment 239 would make it more difficult for local authorities to identify children who may not be receiving a suitable full-time education. Without having the time that a parent spends educating their child on the registers, how are local authorities to know whether the six hours that a child spends at a supplementary school each week is just part of their education or their whole education?

In relation to Amendment 235A, what if no parent claims responsibility for the education of the child? Unfortunately, we must face the reality that some children in England and Wales are receiving no education at all from their parents or from anybody else. Where this is the case, how can local authorities even begin to intervene if they are missing basic information, such as an up-to-date address for both parents?

Amendments 240, 241 and 247, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to restrict or remove completely the requirement on parents to provide information on the amount of time their child spends receiving education from individuals other than the parent. I will come back in a moment to the point about hours and time, raised—appropriately—by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and my noble friend Lady Morris. But it is important that local authorities understand whether other persons are involved in the education of the child. This, alongside information on for how much time a child is educated by their parent, will support the authority to establish whether education is full-time or not and to fulfil their existing duty to identify children missing education. This is an important point, which the noble Lord, Lord Storey, also brought to our attention.

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

Will the Minister answer my supplementary question about whether the department or she have in mind a number of hours that make up full-time education that they are trying to get to through this process?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I said I will come to that—I am coming to it. I will also answer the other point about the annual report.

Once again, on this, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and other noble Lords for taking the time to meet my officials and to outline in detail their concerns about the nature of the information that we are requesting. I understand the concern not to limit the wide range of activities that effective home education may well involve, the range of different organisations that might be contributing to it and the burdens that might be placed. I reassure noble Lords that I am reflecting on the points raised.

Amendment 253, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to define what constitutes education for the purposes of for which activities parents must provide information on the registers. I anticipate that the noble Lord tabled this amendment to reduce parental burden, but it will actually do the reverse. It would bring a broad list of activities into scope of the duty to provide information, as any activity that results in the child learning would be classed as education. It is not the policy intention that registers will need to contain information on such a wide range of activities. The accepted definition of “education” is that it should contain elements of supervision and instruction that work towards defined objectives. This is supported by case law.

I recognise that noble Lords are concerned about the burden that the duty to provide information on a child’s education provision places on parents and local authorities. We will ensure that those burdens are kept as low as possible. Parents will not be required to give details on non-educational activities, for example, and we will outline this in detail in statutory guidance and, obviously, consult on the details.

Amendments 243 and 249, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and Amendment 254B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, seek to place limitations on the providers that parents must provide information on. They set a threshold so that parents need to provide information only on organisations that offer more than six or 10 hours of education a week, that educate their child during the school day, or that are one-off or largely social and recreational activities. Although I appreciate that these amendments seek to reduce burdens on parents, the exemptions would potentially leave large gaps in the overall picture of a child’s education. This is particularly true if a child is attending multiple providers or does not follow the school timetable. In relation to Amendment 254B, as I mentioned, we will make it clear in statutory guidance that parents will not be expected to give details of non-educational activities for the register.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

I apologise for interrupting my noble friend in her very helpful answer. My amendment would require that schools get this information so that they can learn how they could educate children better. Of course, it is excellent that the local authorities have it, but should not schools have it too?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I understand the point my noble friend makes. When children’s parents ask for their child to be taken off the roll of a school, which of course is absolutely their right, and the school should do that, it should also, as my noble friend says, reflect on the reasons why the parents are wanting to home educate that child. More broadly, in policy terms, I think we all need to reflect on the points made by my noble friend and others about where the reason is less a positive decision about home education and more a concern about provision for children with special educational needs or otherwise. I think my noble friend is aware that the department already collects information on reasons for home education, but, as she has highlighted, there are gaps in the data. That is why the Bill already allows for this information to be prescribed for inclusion.

For example, recording whether a child is a young carer could be prescribed under new Section 436C(2)(m) of the Education Act,

“any other information about the child’s characteristics, circumstances, needs or interactions with a local authority”.

If prescribed, local authorities will need to record this information if they have it or can reasonably obtain it. We will consult on the content of these regulations, and they will be subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure. I hope that this will help to ensure that the information prescribed for inclusion in local authority registers is appropriate and useful. However, it is necessary that the information outlined in the noble Lord’s and my noble friend’s amendments remains voluntary for parents to provide. For some parents, the reason they have chosen to home-educate is deeply personal. Requiring it could cause parents to try to avoid registration altogether, making it more difficult for local authorities to identify and support those children who need it.

Amendments 260 and 261 in some ways reverse the argument being made in the previous two amendments, a point also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. These amendments aim to restrict any further information being prescribed for inclusion or recording by local authorities on their registers other than that which is set out in the Bill. To be clear, the purpose of these powers is to ensure that local authorities can include useful information in their registers that has not been explicitly mentioned in primary legislation or prescribed through regulations. It will allow that information to be recorded. We do not want local authorities prevented from making their registers a productive tool due to a lack of flexibility but, just to reiterate once again—

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Very briefly, in new Section 436C(3) local authorities already have the power in legislation to include,

“any other information the local authority considers appropriate”.

My Amendment 260 limits the power of the Secretary of State to expand it in any way that the Secretary of State sees appropriate.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I will come back to the noble Baroness about whether that provides the flexibility I am arguing potentially needs to be in the Bill. The fear is that, as several noble Lords have argued, there are arguments for the inclusion of information that could be very helpful in identifying whether a child is receiving a suitable education, and, furthermore, what support it is possible to provide and should be provided for those children. We would not want to reduce the usefulness of the registers due to that lack of flexibility.

The point I was going to come on to, which I think is important, is that I must stress that parents are under no obligation to provide any further information, even if local authorities ask for it. I think there has been concern by some parents about the extent to which they will be expected to provide that information. That is not the case; it is, as several noble Lords have rightly argued, simply about how we can ensure that these registers are effective and useful while being as unburdensome as possible. That is what we are all striving to achieve here. I hope that, for the reasons I have outlined, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments at this point.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I shall pick up on a couple of points that the Minister made, I think this would be a very interesting point—

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to this group of amendments on the children not in school register, which seek to probe issues surrounding privacy. The children not in school consultation aimed to collate thoughts and views around local authority registers of children not attending school to ensure that all children receive a positive and beneficial education regardless of where that education might be taking place. There were close to 5,000 responses, predominantly from parents, but also from both local authorities and charities, and the findings will help to weave a gold standard of policy and guidance, which I am sure all noble Lords wish to be entirely fit for purpose.

On these specific amendments, it is of course acknowledged that the priority should be to find the right balance between privacy on the one hand and the safety of children who are not well looked after on the other. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Barran, who has already set out so well His Majesty’s loyal Opposition’s view on these issues in the previous groups, so I will not detain your Lordships’ House by repeating those same arguments.

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

Amendments in group 4, which we have now got to, concern the inclusion of certain information in the registers and the delegated power for changes to be made to the operation of the registers. I turn to speak to Amendments 255, 256, 257, 258 and 259, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Each amendment addresses an element of the information which the Secretary of State may prescribe for inclusion in the registers.

Just to reiterate, as I did on the last group, parents need to provide only certain limited information about their child: their name, date of birth, address and how they are educated. All further information which the Secretary of State may prescribe for inclusion in the registers is voluntary for parents to provide. This includes information on the child’s protected characteristics, which Amendment 255 would remove, current and historic child protection inquiries, which Amendment 256 would remove, current or previous child-in-need status, which Amendment 257 would remove, the reasons for the child having looked-after status on the registers, which Amendment 258 would remove, and reasons why the child is eligible for inclusion in the register, which Amendment 259 would delete.

As mentioned in the previous group, the Secretary of State may prescribe in regulations the information which the local authority shall be required to include in the “children not in school” registers, if they hold it or can reasonably obtain it. The intention is for this additional information to help local authorities better understand and support children who are not in school. My department will consult on the content of regulations following Royal Assent. I suggest to the noble Lord that the consultation process is the right approach to determine whether there is a case for omitting certain information or including details such as the reasons for a child’s looked-after status in the registers. On Amendment 255, I am happy to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that the relevant provision is indeed compatible with European Court of Human Rights rulings. The ECHR memorandum makes this clear.

Amendment 262, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, removes the delegated power for the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to prescribe how registers must be maintained. This power is intended to enable the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to provide for consistency among local authorities as to how their registers are maintained. This could include factors such as how and how often registers are checked for accuracy, how amendments are to be made, their format, and whether and how registers should be published. Most local authorities already voluntarily maintain a register of children not in school, developed based on their local needs. However, to ensure the accuracy of data and encourage consistency of practices across all areas, the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers must be able to prescribe processes relating to maintenance and upkeep in the future.

As mentioned, we will consult on all regulations used to implement the “children not in school” measures, all but one of which will then be laid via the affirmative procedure. I hope that, for the reasons I have outlined, the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I have not spoken much at this stage of the Bill but, having heard the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I have to say very respectfully that I am concerned.

It seems to me enormously important that the local authority has the opportunity to understand what is happening with children who are home-schooled, and it has the responsibility to check. I have no doubt at all that the family of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, teach their children extremely well at home but my understanding from what I have been told is that this is not true in every family. I think the Government are entirely right to be taking the steps that they are taking, just to check that our children who are not at school are properly cared for.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, as I have said previously, the duty on parents to give information for children not in school registers is key to their operation. Information on where the child is being educated, and by whom, is vital in enabling local authorities to identify cases of potentially unsuitable or unsafe education.

The amendments in this group concern this requirement for parents to give information, and how local authorities must act in a transparent and accountable manner towards the home-educating families in their area. Amendment 277, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, seeks, in effect, to remove the requirement.

I want to respond to the broader points that the noble Baroness made about home-schooling. I completely understand—actually, I am not sure that I do understand—why she might have wanted to celebrate the election of her new leader. In any event, I recognise that she has a new leader, which was decided this morning. Had she been here this morning, she would have heard what were, I hope, important comments from me and others on the support that exists within the English and Welsh education system, precisely for parents to home-educate, and the reiteration by this Government that there is no intention in this legislation to remove that right. In fact, there is an intention to provide additional recognition and support while also ensuring that local authorities are able to carry out their functions, by knowing where children are being educated otherwise than in school. I hope that the noble Baroness will read the comments that I made this morning about that.

Without a requirement on home-educating parents to register with their local authority, authorities cannot be assured that they have fulfilled their education duties towards children not in school living in their areas. Parents having to provide required information is an absolutely crucial component for the success of the registers.

I bring my noble friend Lord Hacking back to the point that I made this morning. I was completely clear that it is not the case that failing to provide information to the register would lead directly to parents having to face fines and penalties. I hope that my noble friend will reread that contribution and find that it provides some assurance around the point that he made.

I recognise that there are home educators who are already known to local authorities and are captured on voluntary registers. However, that is not the case for all because there is currently no legal requirement for parents to tell local authorities that they are home-educating. Without placing this proactive duty on parents, local authorities will have no assurance that they have identified all children not in school in their areas. As I have mentioned previously, the duty on parents to give information for registers is separate from but complementary to the annual reports that some parents submit to local authorities for the purposes of providing in-depth information about their child’s education.

In terms of parents giving detailed information on the child’s learning objectives and progress towards them, we want parents to continue to have flexibility to submit information in a way that works best both for them and for the elective home education officer. However, for the basic information, such as where the child is being educated and by whom, it is essential that there is a level of consistency in how this is submitted, collected and maintained. Parents of home-educated children in almost all other western countries must, as a minimum, provide details for a register. Children in England and Wales deserve the same level of assurance.

Amendment 278, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to allow parents to provide the required information in their own words. I appreciate how that approach would afford some flexibility to parents, but there needs to be consistency. That is why we are seeking a delegated power for the Secretary of State to prescribe how local authorities maintain and keep their registers, including the use of a prescribed registration form. We will ensure that the form is accessible and simple for families to use.

Amendments 280, 282 and 285, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to restrict the duty on parents to provide information for registers, and the ability of local authorities to request information, by imposing time limits. Amendment 280 would restrict local authorities from requesting required information to once a year and impose a “reasonable cause to suspect harm” threshold for further engagement. Amendment 282 would provide a similar threshold so that parents did not have to provide information more than once every 12 months, and Amendment 285 would go further by introducing a civil penalty of up to £5,000 for local authorities for asking for information too frequently.

Twelve months would be too long a period for a local authority to be unaware of a change to a registered child’s education provision or personal circumstances. Education concerns can arise at any time, and local authorities must retain the ability to act proportionately without needing to meet a safeguarding threshold. The threshold risks conflating safeguarding with the separate duty to ensure that a child is receiving a suitable education.

Amendments 283 and 284, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to extend parental response times from 15 to 30 days, as well as alternative deadlines that would potentially extend the timeframe to 12 months. We are keen that the length of time to respond to a request is proportionate and balances the needs of the family with the risk of a child being out of education for too long. That is why the Bill already allows a local authority the discretion to extend the timeframe for response to requests for information. That discretion could be used by local authorities if they make the request at a time when, for example, it is likely that a family may be on holiday.

Amendment 281, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to require parents of registered children to provide updates to their local authority only when there has been a substantial change to their information in the register. We share the noble Lord’s ambition that the burden on parents to provide information is kept to a minimum, but we have to ask: what would count as a substantial change? For example, a child attending a setting for an extra half an hour a week could mean that the child was then attending that setting for 18 hours or more, potentially indicating that the setting was operating illegally. Even though it was just 30 minutes more, it would be right that the local authority knew about it as the child might be attending an illegal school.

I know that the noble Lord is also concerned that families may overcomply with their duty to update information. I thank him and other noble Lords for detailing these concerns to my officials in the July meeting. We are committed to ensuring that the registers work for everyone and will continue to take into consideration the feedback that we have heard from your Lordships, home educators and local authorities.

I turn to Amendment 287, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei. In a situation where parents have not fulfilled their duty to give information for registers, the amendment would require a local authority to seek approval from a magistrate or independent tribunal before taking further steps to gather the required information. Requiring local authorities to seek approval from magistrates or a tribunal before making reasonable inquiries about a child’s education is disproportionate at best. At worst, it risks children being in unsuitable education for long periods.

If a parent of an eligible child does not provide required information for a register, local authorities may continue informal inquiries. They also have the discretion to issue a preliminary notice for a school attendance order. This notice would require the parent to provide information on the suitability of the child’s education. These are proportionate responses to ensure a child is in receipt of suitable education.

Amendments 270, 380 and 382 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to establish new review processes, including in situations where it is believed that a local authority is acting outside guidance or law. Local authorities are required to act in accordance with the law and should follow statutory guidance. If parents feel that a local authority has acted unreasonably or has not followed the law, there are several existing complaints processes in place, such as the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the judicial review process; in some cases the Secretary of State has powers to intervene.

The guidance updated as part of the children not in school measures will build on existing non-statutory guidance to ensure greater consistency around complaint processing. The new statutory guidance will also be consulted on prior to implementation. Data gathered by the department as a result of the children not in school registers will also allow us to draw comparisons between local authorities, identify any outliers and offer further support to these local authorities where appropriate. For these reasons, while we fully support engagement and transparency between local authorities and home-educating families, we do not believe that these amendments are the right way to achieve that aim.

Amendment 388 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to set up an annual review panel made up of home-educated children to advise on legislation impacting home education. The voice of the child is an important consideration when developing and implementing education and safeguarding policies. There have been previous consultations on changes to home education and young people were able to feed in their views, including a call for evidence in 2018, a consultation on the children not in school registers in 2019 and updates to the elective home education guidance in 2023. We would also welcome input from children as part of the future consultation on the children not in school statutory guidance as part of the implementation of the measures in this Bill.

For the reasons I have outlined, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive set of answers, most of which amount to “wait and see”, which I shall be delighted to do. I would be very grateful if she would send me some information on what she thinks the scope of the Local Government Ombudsman is in this area. I had previously thought that they would not have jurisdiction, so I would be very grateful for the Department for Education’s understanding of what sort of questions they will feel able to resolve. Given that, I beg leave to withdraw.

--- Later in debate ---

However, we are slightly less clear—the same may be true for the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, in relation to his Amendment 288A—about the duties placed on providers that offer irregular or brief sessions. Like the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and others, we are concerned about sports, music and other activities. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, argued that there should be some parameters around the requirements for providers to submit information to the register. The Minister rejected the number of hours as a mechanism for a parameter, so it would be helpful for her to set out, beyond non-educational activities, whether there are any other parameters that the Government see as being relevant here. With that, I commend my Amendments 291 and 293 to the Committee.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Let me organise my notes—you are keen for things to move quickly and then they move just that bit too quickly.

The importance of out-of-school education providers to home-educating families has been raised several times already. I recognise again the important part these settings play, providing enriching activities and education to a vast array of children. I hope that these providers will recognise that the measures included in the Bill give no reason to cease this valuable work—notwithstanding that I recognise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, about the concerns of organisations as we clarify the intentions here. We will continue, therefore, to engage with the sector on the implementation of children not in school registers, so it is confident in what the registers mean for it.

The amendments in this group concern the duty on certain out-of-school education providers to give information for children not in school registers. Amendment 288, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to remove the duty. This is a vital element of the measures that will aid the identification of children who should be on registers but are not. It is essential for enabling local authorities to cross-reference information on their registers to ensure accuracy. We know that many out-of-school education providers share our ambition to secure the best possible outcomes for these children and will gladly support the registers on that basis.

Amendment 290, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to remove the word “structured” from the definition of out-of-school education. Actually, the impact of this amendment would be to potentially bring many more providers into scope of the duty, such as informal or ad hoc educational arrangements. It is important that the duty remains proportionate. I know that proportionality is an ambition shared by many noble Lords in this House and has been an important theme of the debates today.

This is not to say that informal or ad hoc educational arrangements are invalid. We know that some home-educators follow child-led approaches to learning, in which, under the direction of their parent, children learn from a wide range of people they encounter in their daily lives. Parents can record this as time spent in education for the purposes of the registers, but local authorities will not have the power to seek information from those individuals.

It is also important to note that the provider duty applies only where education is provided without any parent of the child being actively involved in their tuition or supervision. This means that groups of home-educating parents who meet up with their children are unlikely to be captured by the duty. The duty also applies only when an individual is providing the education; therefore, creators of platforms for e-learning, for example, would not be required to give information on children who access their websites.

Amendments 288A, 291, 292 and 293, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would limit the Secretary of State’s power to set a threshold at which local-level authorities can request information from out-of-school education providers, or otherwise exempt providers from the duty to give information; for example, by removing the requirement in respect of education they provide on weekends or during school holidays to home-educated children—I will not return to that again; I have taken out the relevant paragraph.

I agree with the sentiment behind these amendments. The Bill allows for regulations to set a threshold, and we are committed to setting it at a suitable level. I recognise the probing element of the amendments in this case; however, noble Lords’ varying suggestions on where the threshold should be set—for example, at six or 10 hours—exemplify why it should not be set in primary legislation. We will consult further to ensure the threshold balances the need for local authorities to collect necessary information without placing unreasonable burdens on providers. Noble Lords will also have the opportunity to debate the threshold when it is set in regulations through the affirmative procedure.

To reiterate, the intention behind the provider duty is to capture the providers involved in providing a home-educated child’s education, rather than organised activities that the child may be involved in for primarily recreational or social reasons—even if they are important for their development, such as the example of rugby raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington.

As I previously highlighted, the ability to prescribe a threshold, as well as the ability to make regulations to exempt types of providers from the duty, will help ensure that only those that are relevant are captured. It is our intention to exempt those organisations that have a drop-in, drop-out nature or happen irregularly. Examples of that include museums that offer workshops for children, as my noble friend Lady Morris stated this morning; public lectures that are open to any family or individual to book; and periods of work experience, as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp has suggested. It is our intention to exempt those organisations and types of activities.

I know that some noble Lords are concerned that the provider duty introduces a disparity between school children and home-educated children, but we must remember that there is a huge level of oversight for where and what children are learning at school, which is bolstered by inspection frameworks, curriculum requirements and attendance data. What we are asking of out-of-school education providers in comparison is minimal. As part of the implementation, we will keep engaging with the sector to ensure continuity of provision for home-educated children; I recognise how important that is.

Amendments 294 and 299, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to remove the requirement for providers to confirm to local authorities whether they are providing out-of-school education to a child for more than the prescribed amount of time, and to remove the requirement to provide information on the amount of time they are doing so. Amendment 294 would require providers to give information on any child. This would not be proportionate. The legislation limits this to children to whom they are providing education above a prescribed threshold without their parents’ involvement.

In reference to Amendment 299, on understanding the number of hours children are attending such provision without their parents, we will support local authorities to identify children who are attending unregistered independent schools. Some children not in school are attending those illegal settings for long hours and are not receiving a safe or suitable education. It is crucial that the local authority has the information required to intervene in those circumstances.

Turning to Amendment 298, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which seeks to further clarify the information that providers are required to give local authorities on the total amount of time for which they provide education to children, we believe this amendment is unnecessary. The drafting is already clear that the total amount of time that the provider provides education to the child refers to the time when the child is receiving education from the provider. However, statutory guidance can be used to give further detail if necessary.

On Amendment 296, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which would require providers in scope of the duty to provide only information that they already know to local authorities, providers should already hold the required information for health and safety and safeguarding purposes, and they will have to provide it only on request. Enabling providers to provide only the information that they know makes it too easy for unsuitable settings to just say “I don’t know” and to keep children hidden away from the services that are there to support them.

On Amendment 300, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which would remove the provision in new Section 436E that the local authority must request information from a provider by sending or leaving a notice at the place where the education is provided, providers in scope of the duty need clarity on how information will be requested. I acknowledge that the noble Lord has tabled this amendment due to his concerns as to how the provision will work for virtual providers. The legislation already provides for a notice to be served electronically, and we can make this clear in statutory guidance.

On Amendments 301 and 302, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which seek to extend the period by when a provider must respond to a local authority’s request for information, it is essential that local authorities have the requested information as soon as possible so that they can ensure that their registers are accurate and identify children who should be registered but are not. The timeframe for providers to give the required information is at least 15 days, and a local authority has discretion to extend that—for example, to account for closures over holiday periods.

Amendments 303 and 304, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 295, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, set out reasons to exempt some out-of-school education providers from monetary penalties should they not provide requested information for a local authority’s register. A local authority does not have to impose a monetary penalty on providers should they fail to provide information or provide incorrect information. It would be unlikely that a local authority would issue a monetary penalty if a provider had made a minor mistake for the first time, for instance. We will look to make it clear in the statutory guidance that authorities can engage with providers to correct minor mistakes without having to resort to penalty notices. The process for providers to make representations against and appeal a monetary penalty is set out in the Bill. I think this is sufficient recourse for providers who disagree with their monetary penalty.

I hope that, for the reasons I have outlined and because of the explanations I have provided, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister made some excellent and very clear statements in response to my amendment, which are extremely useful. Will she consider putting any part of that in the Bill? It seemed to me that she was very clear and definitive, and that it was not beyond the wit of the department to come up with some clever form of words that would indicate what she stated without making it very difficult to introduce regulations later. Perhaps that is something the Minister would consider.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I have stated it on the record here. I have also identified one of the problems with putting it in the Bill—I used the example of time limits, where, so far, we have had two different suggestions as to whether that should be six hours or 10 hours. The noble Lord knows this, but there are real difficulties and inflexibilities in placing that sort of detail in legislation. I would be more than happy to write to noble Lords, going over again the intention with respect to those regulations. I think I am right in saying that the regulations will also be subject to consideration by this House. I hope that that will reassure the noble Lord. As much as I know that people love things to be in Bills, in this case I genuinely think that we can be clear about the intention and provide assurances without creating the inflexibility that placing something in the Bill would do.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

If my noble friend could imagine that she has not sat down, I would like to ask one question. Maybe I have missed it out, but the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, tabled Amendment 295 but did not speak to it in the debate, and I am not sure that I heard any reply to it from my noble friend. This amendment is important because, once again, detailed information is being sought from parents and, if they are in breach of providing that information, it is stipulated 15 times that they are exposed to monetary penalty. Has my noble friend dealt with this? Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, can help here.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Well, I can reassure my noble friend that I did cover Amendment 295 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. What we are talking about in these provisions relates to penalties on providers. We have moved on from the discussions that we were having about the requirements for parents to provide information. I hope that my noble friend will look back on what I said. I did provide quite considerable reassurance about both the process and the range of circumstances in which monetary penalties would most certainly not be the first thing that would be looked to in relation to a failure by providers to provide information.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her tolerance and undertake to properly read the Hansard of today’s debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, raised this issue at Second Reading. I supported him then and I support him again now. It is quite unfair that a child who has been educated privately at home should be placed in a different position from state-educated children. All children who have been home educated should be encouraged to go through these exams and not face a financial penalty. This is a very simple measure, and I ask my noble friend the Minister to give it favourable consideration. It is a much fairer system and it encourages all home-educating parents to put their children through examination, so that the quality of their teaching can be tested.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Supporting children to achieve and thrive requires parents, authorities and education providers to work together. That is what much of our debate today has been about and speaks to the amendments in this group that concern the facilitation of examinations and the publication of exam results for home-educated children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, I thank the Minister for her response. I absolutely support the sentiment just expressed by my noble friend Lord Lucas about the importance of understanding the outcomes for children who are home-educated.

In relation to my Amendment 306, the reasons that the Minister gave for not aggregating and publishing, or even aggregating and not publishing, their GCSE results was—as I wrote down—that, first, it was hard to do and, secondly, it would not produce the results that we expect. It feels curious to me that someone could not put a box on the form—that a child could tick, to say that they were home-educated—that could be aggregated.

On the expected results, the whole point, or part of the point, was to understand how many home-educated children were taking public exams and how many were not. I think that would be a useful bit of information. So I do not accept the argument that it would not produce the results that we expect; we do not have an expectation because we do not know what they are. More widely, when there were very small numbers of children who were home-educated, it was perhaps—

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Just to be clear, I do not know whether I said that they would not produce the results that we expect. If I did, that was not what I meant to say. What I meant to say was that in terms of the ability to have a statistical analysis of the quality of home education, the different nature of home education and the range, quite rightly, of decisions made by parents—many of whom might decide that exams are not the appropriate route for their children—would mean that we would not be able to formulate from that data the common view of performance that the noble Baroness is suggesting would be the objective.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that clarification. What I wrote down is “not producing the results we expect”. We can check in Hansard whether that is what she actually said. I suppose the point I was trying to make is that this is a kind of entry point question. It is not going to give us a sophisticated analysis but it gives us some perspective. If we tried to estimate by taking a straw poll of Members of the House what percentage of home-educated children do GCSEs, we might get very varying results, so even just knowing that might be valuable.

On the other amendments in this group, the Minister was clear that parents are fully responsible, including on the financial implications of home education, but it was good to hear her reiterate the support duty, including on access to previous exam papers. How that support duty is communicated to parents will obviously be of great importance. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, there is a series of amendments that would unlock more financial support for electively home-educating families, including Amendments 401, 402, 411, 413, 419 and 422 in the name of my noble friend Lord Wei. The Minister was crystal clear in response to the last group about where the financial responsibility lies with electively home-educating parents. I sympathise with the Minister in finding the right balance here—to make sure that any support offered, including any financial support, strikes the right balance and is not interpreted as actively encouraging home education, and that we are clear that school for the vast majority of children is the best place to be.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, this Government are introducing the first ever duty on local authorities to provide support specifically for home-educating families. While home-educating parents assume full responsibility for the education of their child, local authorities can and should be a source of information and advice for parents. At the heart of this is the importance of families and local authorities working together to support all children to achieve and thrive. The support duty establishes a baseline level of support across all English and Welsh local authorities. We will say more about the form that that should take in statutory guidance, were this legislation to pass—or when it passes, I should say, optimistically.

I shall respond to some of the points that have been raised in this group on the support duty and access to resources and facilities for home educators. First, I turn to those amendments which focus on the operation of the support duty and relationships between local authorities and home-educating families: Amendments 309, 309A, 310, 311, 313, 313A, 314 and 315. Amendments 309 and 310, tabled by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, would require local authorities to provide support to families irrespective of whether they choose to access it. I have sympathy with the points made by my noble friend about some of the very vulnerable children who may receive home education. It is probably more appropriate to think about the other forms of support that those children should receive—or even, given that level of vulnerability, whether or not home education is the appropriate and suitable education for them. The other issue is that this proposal would also remove local authority discretion as to the nature of the support provided. It would mean that many home-educating families who would prefer to have a choice as to whether they wish to access the support offered by local authorities would not have that choice, as the amendment suggests that authorities should provide support to families irrespective of whether they choose to access it.

Amendment 309A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, would require support to be provided in a language that the parent understands. I am happy to advise that local authorities will have to have due regard to each individual request from parents, which would include consideration of accessibility through use of languages other than English where necessary. This aligns with local authorities’ compliance with the public sector equality duty to consider the diverse needs of different individuals within their community.

I turn to Amendments 311 and 313A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Amendment 311 would require the local authority to have regard to the needs of the child and educational preference of their parents when considering which forms of support to offer. This amendment is unnecessary. We would already expect local authorities to take these factors into account when offering advice and information as part of the support duty. Amendment 313A appears to seek to introduce a “best interest” consideration in relation to the exemption of certain children from the benefit of the support duty—specifically, those children who would be exempt because they have secured additional learning provision or other provision as set out in the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018.

The children exempt from the support duty, as set out in new Section 436G(3) in Clause 31, are exempt in order to avoid the duplication of support from local authorities. For instance, a child in receipt of alternative provision arranged by the local authority would already be in receipt of support from the local authority. Including a “best interests” test in the process specifically related to children subject to Welsh additional learning needs legislation is unnecessary. We are confident that the support duty focuses on the right children, and the existing exemption prevents duplicative support having to be provided by local authorities.

I turn to Amendment 313, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, Amendments 408 and 412, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, and Amendment 426C, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. These amendments would give a right of access to a range of services, facilities and other advantages to home-educated children. Advantages such as access to a school’s facilities and extra-curricular provision are specific to school attendance. If parents wish to access these, a state-funded school place remains available for the child. When a child has an education, health and care plan, most parents will have the choice to make suitable alternative arrangements to those listed in it. For example, most parents can choose to home-educate rather than take advantage of the special educational provision secured by the local authority. It is right that, when alternative arrangements have been chosen and made, the local authority is released from its duty to secure education provision for the child. Local authorities will still have a duty to check the suitability of home education and review the education, health and care plan at least annually. If, at any point, the local authority considers that home education is no longer suitable, it should intervene to support the child by taking appropriate action.

On requiring access to venues for taking public exams, I acknowledge that this is an issue of concern to noble Lords and to parents, as we have heard. Amendment 312, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendments 383 and 426, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, focus on access to examinations for home-educated children. Amendment 312 would place a duty on local authorities to secure an examination centre within a reasonable distance for children eligible for inclusion on children not in school registers. Amendment 383 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to provide parity of exam fee support and access to past exam papers for home-educated children, as compared to children attending maintained schools. Amendment 426 would oblige private schools to let home-educated children sit exams on their premises.

Parents who choose to home-educate assume full responsibility for planning where to access examinations. The Joint Council for Qualifications website provides information on the nearest exam centres, and parents can ask centres to accommodate their child. Home-educated students can access past exam papers to support exam preparation. I recognise the noble Lord’s concerns, and I appreciated his willingness to discuss this in more detail during the meeting in July. It is certainly possible to think about how we could support parents in finding access to exam centres, in the way noble Lords have discussed, without placing the type of requirement on local authorities suggested by these amendments.

With regards to Amendment 426, as with state-funded schools, if a private school wishes to support private candidates, that is a choice for the school’s management. It is not for government to micromanage the operations of private enterprises in the way suggested.

Amendment 314, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, would place a duty on local authorities to build and maintain positive relationships with home-educating families, including through events, and to ensure that staff have appropriate training and experience. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has already identified, it is quite difficult for government to legislate for good relationships, but I can reassure the noble Lord that an expectation for local authorities to build positive and respectful relationships with home-educating families, underpinned by well-trained and knowledgeable staff, is set out in existing departmental guidance. However, I know that he and others are concerned by reports from some home educators that local authorities are not following this guidance. The department does take seriously any complaints received about the conduct of local authorities, as I suggested earlier today. If the Secretary of State is satisfied that a local authority is acting unreasonably, she can intervene using the powers available to her under Section 496 of the Education Act.

Amendment 315, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would prohibit the commencement of proceedings for a school attendance order if a parent has requested support. Although we welcome local authority support, allowing a request for support to halt legal action, even when the education provided is plainly unsuitable, would create a system that is open to abuse, delaying necessary intervention and potentially allowing children to be in unsuitable education for a prolonged period.

Amendments 390, 401, 402, 407, 411, 413, 419 and 422, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to provide financial incentives or reimbursements, for instance in the form of tax breaks for home-educating families. Although I recognise that home education can be a significant undertaking, the Government’s view is clear that parents who choose to educate children at home bear the financial responsibility for doing so, because a state-funded place is available for those children.

Amendment 396, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, aims to require the Government to fund independent academic research into effective home-education practices, with results published every three years. The data collected from children not in school registers will be a good and suitable vehicle for analysis and research into factors concerning home education. This is already occurring through the Department for Education’s existing data collection, which began in autumn 2022. It will be strengthened through improved data quality and by the statutory provisions for sharing data with the Secretary of State when the Bill’s measures come into force. Aggregate data will be published on an annual basis, subject to appropriate data-protection protocols. This will support the carrying out of some of the research that noble Lords have identified into the nature and success of home education.

Finally, Amendment 410, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would require the Secretary of State to establish a public-broadcast service which provides national curriculum-aligned educational content for home-educating families. As noble Lords are aware, there are already a wide range of educational resources which home-educating families can access, both paid for and free of charge. I am not sure it would be a reasonable or legitimate use of taxpayers’ money to develop a TV station in the way in which the noble Lord has asked for.

I hope that I have been able to provide some assurances and further information and that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s response to my amendments, but may I pick up briefly the question of exam centres for home-educated children? The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, was kind enough in early 2024 to allow me to start exploring what was required to reverse the trend that we have seen for many years of a reduction in availability of exam centres. This was rudely interrupted in July—sadly, for us—but it was clear to me that there was no lack of good will.

We have a collection of about half a dozen organisations, each of which has sets of individual requirements and ways of looking at things that do not quite mesh and that make it difficult for a school to continue the provision. This includes the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. One of the great difficulties is that, if you allow any outside candidate, you have to admit all outside candidates, and if any of them have special needs and require particular provision in separate rooms and you do not have that, you do not know where to provide it and you do not have the budget for the staffing, you just say, “We cannot do this because we cannot handle the exceptional circumstances”. It is a question of getting people together and saying, “We, the Government, have an objective: we want home-educated children to have reasonable access to exam centres. Please sit down together, sort out your differences and give us the answer”. And they would, because it is perfectly possible; it just requires a series of small compromises.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am not convinced that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is the reason why there are difficulties in the way that the noble Lord outlined, but I take his point that we could make progress on this were there to be some brokering of arrangements. I would be willing to give further consideration to information about access to examinations and how to overcome some of the issues.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and I appreciate my noble friend the Minister’s sympathetic response. Perhaps I could discuss with her later some aspects of the approach to marginalised parents. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 309.

--- Later in debate ---

With regard to the revised, shortened amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, there is an important balance to be struck. Of course one can argue about timing and the number of days, but, if a child is not getting any education, it is incredibly important that this is addressed in the most timely way possible.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

To continue where the noble Baroness finished, a child receiving unsuitable education for as little as a day could be detrimental for their educational development. The measures in the Bill seek to make this process more efficient, minimising the time in which a child may be receiving unsuitable education.

We have heard many speeches that highlight the rights of parents to educate their children how they wish. Parental choice is important, but it is crucial to remember that with rights come responsibilities. All children have a right to a suitable education, and parents have a responsibility to secure that education for their children. Where parents fail in this responsibility, there must be a consequence for the parent and a swift route to suitable education for the child.

The amendments in this group are focused on the school attendance order process. I turn first to address the opposition from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to Clause 32 standing part of the Bill. We believe that Clause 32 is essential. Without it, local authorities would have no power to act when parents refuse to comply with the children not in school registration duties, or where a child is not receiving a suitable education. Clause 32 allows local authorities to require school attendance where a child is subject to child protection investigations or plans and where school is deemed to be in the child’s best interests. This is a vital safeguard for some of our most vulnerable children.

As part of school attendance order proceedings, local authorities will be empowered to request to visit the child inside their home, so that they can fully consider the environment in which home education is being provided. Parents have the right to refuse the local authority’s request. If access is not given, this will be a relevant factor for the local authority to consider when deciding whether to serve an order.

The clause strengthens the current system by introducing timelines to make enforcement more efficient and to reduce prolonged periods in unsuitable education. It allows parents convicted of breaching a school attendance order to be prosecuted again if they continue to breach it, without requiring local authorities to restart the enforcement process. Aligning school attendance order fines with attendance fines will further incentivise parents to ensure children are registered at, and continue to be registered at, the named school.

I turn to Amendment 333A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking, and Amendment 334, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Amendment 334 seeks to make the issuing of a preliminary notice when a child is not receiving suitable education, or when home education is not in the best interests of an eligible child, a discretionary act for local authorities. I will not respond to Amendment 333A, as I had intended to, given what my noble friend said. Making the process discretionary would create inconsistency. A mandatory preliminary notice ensures that there is definitive action when a local authority has reasons to believe that home education is not suitable for, or not in the best interests of, an eligible child.

Amendment 335, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would require support to be offered before a preliminary notice could be issued. In cases where concerns about the suitability of education are serious or urgent, local authorities must be able to act without delay. Making support a legal precondition could inadvertently shield unsuitable provision from scrutiny. However, I appreciate that the noble Lord is concerned that a formal notice can be daunting for a parent to receive. We will consider what further guidance can be issued to parents and local authorities as part of the implementation of these measures to ensure that they can engage confidently with the process.

Amendments 338 and 341, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to prevent local authorities considering whether it would be in an eligible child’s best interests for them to receive education by regular school attendance as part of the preliminary notice for school attendance orders. It is important for me to explain the reasoning behind the best interests test in this context. Currently, local authorities have no recourse to require a child on a child protection plan or inquiry to attend school unless they can identify that the child is receiving unsuitable education. The best interests test requires local authorities to take action when they identify children subject to child protection inquiries or plans whose interests would be best served by regularly attending school, regardless of whether the education provided at home is considered suitable. Statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, provides clarity on what making best interests decisions means and will be further updated as part of the implementation of these measures.

Amendments 339 and 340, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to remove or limit the ability of the local authority to issue a preliminary notice when a child is subject to an active Section 47 child protection inquiry. Local authorities will be able to issue a preliminary notice under the relevant subsection only if it appears to them that the child subject to the Section 47 inquiry is not regularly attending school and that it would be in that child’s best interests to do so. A preliminary notice will not automatically result in a school attendance order.

It is also important to remember that such inquiries take place because Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 puts a duty on local authorities to make inquiries where it considers that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. These formal inquiries are not initiated lightly; their use signals serious concerns about a child’s welfare. Section 47 inquiries should not be initiated based purely on the fact that a parent is home-educating, as we are clear that home education is not in itself an inherent safeguarding risk. It is vital that local authorities have the means to gather information on the circumstances of at-risk children and determine whether their interests would be better served by regularly attending school.

Amendments 342 and 346, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and Amendments 336, 337, 343, 344, 345 and 347, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to remove the ability of local authorities to issue a preliminary notice when a parent has not provided information, or has provided incorrect information, for a children not in school register. This power is discretionary, and local authorities should not normally issue a preliminary notice in response to a genuine error by a parent but instead continue informal inquiries. However, without a consequence on parents for not providing the required information, the duty on them to provide information would be, in effect, redundant. This duty on parents is necessary to ensure that local authorities have the required information to ensure that education is suitable and safe. Local authorities must act promptly once it appears that action should be taken so there is no delay in providing appropriate support to children who need it. The timeframes in the school attendance order process strike the right balance between urgency and operational practicality. Removing them could lead to inconsistent and slower responses across different authorities, resulting in children potentially spending more time in unsuitable education.

I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, does not seek to press his Amendment 365. It would perhaps be best for me to deal with the set of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wei—which concern penalties for parents in a range of circumstances—by writing to noble Lords with some assurances about each of the amendments, rather than going through them all in this debate.

Finally, I address the stand part notice from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, which seeks to remove Clause 35 from the Bill. Clause 35 introduces Schedule 2, which makes consequential amendments to existing legislation so that the new school attendance order process for local authorities in England and Wales is reflected in the Children Act 1989, the Education Act 1996 and other relevant legislation. The clause is necessary to ensure proper functioning of the process, and I urge that it stands part of the Bill.

For the reasons I have outlined, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments, and I urge that Clauses 32 and 35 stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I am grateful, as ever, for the Minister’s responses, but I would be additionally grateful if she could write to me, between now and Report, to give me a much clearer idea of what the parental experience will be. For example, when faced with a best interests determination by a local authority that the parents consider to be seriously damaging to their child, how do they appeal it? What is the process for taking that through? Assuming that the local authority has it wrong, what is the full process that results in the parents being able to help the local authority understand the reality of their child’s circumstances and where their best interests really lie. With all the help that has been given, I still fail to get a grip on what that process will be and will feel like, and I would love to share that with home educators.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Is the noble Lord clear that the best interests requirement relates to cases where children are subject to child protection inquiries or plans?

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

Yes. It is only in about half of Section 47 where one would judge that that is a real problem. I understand and accept what the Government are saying about the need not to find that we are not covering children whom we need to cover, and that means that there are children going through the system for whom the dangers are not absolute, but if, for example, the child has deep school anxiety, or has really been bullied in the school, or the school has taken against them for some other reason and they have a horrid experience, and the local authority says, “Go back in”, what is the experience of the parent in appealing that? I do not have the grip on the details of the system that I would like.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I will write about that specific point.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, provided that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, does not want to make any more interventions, I will take this opportunity to close the debate.

Your Lordships heard that I was repenting; I pleaded guilty to overreach. I did not seek to press this amendment, but because an enormous number of amendments are listed after Amendment 333A, I felt it was right that all Members should have an opportunity to speak to any of the amendments in this group. Having said that, I have no hesitation in withdrawing this amendment and thanking my noble friend the Minister for her very careful and adequate replies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

I join my noble friend Lady Whitaker on removing the threat of imprisonment: it would be entirely inappropriate, and there are enough people already in prison.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, as we continue to debate school attendance orders, we must never lose sight of the child at the heart of this. A child gets one chance at an education, and that is why our processes must act swiftly, decisively and in the best interests of the child.

Amendments 348, 349, 350 to 352, 358, 362, 363 and 367 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 357 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, look to remove or alter the ability for a school attendance order to be served. Amendment 348 seeks to remove the entire school attendance order section. I accept that that may not be the purpose or intention of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, so let me move on to Amendment 349, which would mean that a local authority could serve an order on parents of children who had historically been subject to a Section 47 child protection inquiry or plan, even if this is no longer the case and the child is receiving a suitable education. It would be disproportionate for a local authority to be able to serve an order in these situations. If a Section 47 inquiry has concluded and not resulted in a child protection plan, parents will not be required to demonstrate that home education is in their child’s best interests. If the notice was also issued on the grounds that the local authority was not satisfied as to the suitability of education, the parent would still be required to demonstrate that the home education is suitable.

Amendment 350 would require local authorities to consider only the major educational settings used by a child, and Amendment 351 would prevent the consideration of where the child lives as part of the decision to serve a school attendance order. Settings where the child is educated are an important part of the local authority’s suitability assessment. Children attending unsafe or otherwise unsuitable settings are unlikely to be receiving an overall suitable education. It is essential that local authorities can identify where this is the case and take action.

Turning to Amendment 352, I hope the noble Lord is reassured to know that the wording in new Section 436I under the Bill does not require local authorities to make financial inquiries of families as part of the school attendance order process. Amendment 357 calls for local authorities to provide formal reasons whenever a school attendance order is issued. Local authorities are already subject to public law duties, and this includes providing reasons for decisions. Statutory guidance will ensure that local authorities are given clear advice and expectations on these matters.

Amendments 358, 363 and 367 would prevent a school attendance order being enforced or require it to be revoked should a child no longer live in the jurisdiction. This would be a significant loophole. A parent could remove a child from the jurisdiction temporarily, or claim to have done so, and thereby avoid compliance. Ultimately, this amendment is unnecessary because, once such an order is made, there are already mechanisms for parents to apply for it to be varied or revoked should they move school or demonstrate that suitable education is to be provided outside school.

Amendment 362 seeks to ensure that, if a parent has asked that a private school is named in a school attendance order, an order will not be issued and instead education will be deemed as suitable. The intention behind this amendment is to prevent a parent having to pay unaffordable bills if their financial circumstances change. As previously mentioned, the parent can simply apply to the local authority to have the order amended to name another school if they can no longer afford the fees of the school named in the order.

Amendments 356 and 359 seek to remove timelines on parts of the school attendance order process. I understand that the noble Lord’s intention is to probe whether sufficient time is built into the process for informing a school when it is to be named in a school attendance order. I can reassure noble Lords that it is. New Section 436L in the Bill outlines that a local authority must serve a school nomination notice on a school which it intends to name in an order. If the school disagrees with the decision, it has 10 school days to make an application to the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers for a direction.

Amendments 349A and 362A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, seek to prevent a school attendance order being issued to any child who has an education, health and care plan, experiences emotionally based school avoidance or is eligible for special educational needs support. All children deserve a suitable education. School attendance orders therefore need to apply to all children. It would not be practical to remove that option from local authorities for particular children. That would limit the available courses of action to secure a child’s education. A local authority should ensure that the school named in an order is right for the needs of the child in question. We recognise that some pupils will be impacted by issues such as emotionally based school avoidance. Our guidance is clear that schools should work with the child and their family to remove barriers to attendance and build strong and trusting relationships.

Amendments 364 and 391, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, and Amendment 367A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking, seek to amend the process for revoking a school attendance order. Amendment 364 would require a local authority to establish and consult a panel that includes home-educating parents when considering a revocation request. This would be wholly inappropriate. To come to a decision on whether to revoke an order, it is likely that the local authority will need to consider a range of information about the child’s education and personal circumstances. I cannot imagine that many parents would want this sort of sensitive information shared with a jury of other parents.

Amendment 391 seeks to give the parent the right to have their case heard by a jury trial if their child has been required to attend school through a school attendance order. The existing process affords sufficient opportunity for parents to demonstrate that they are providing a suitable education and therefore should not be required to send their child to a named school.

Do I understand correctly that my noble friend Lord Hacking is not now pushing Amendment 367A?

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

Yes.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Right. I will turn then to Amendments 368, tabled by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, and Amendment 369, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei. These amendments seek to amend the maximum fine for a breach of a school attendance order. I understand that the prospect of fines is worrying for parents. However, a parent runs the risk of a fine only if they breach the order. The consequence of breaching a school attendance order must be brought in line with the offence of unauthorised school absences. This removes the perverse incentive for a parent to remove their child from school under the guise of home education to avoid higher school attendance fines.

Amendment 371, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would require the court to consider the best interests of the child when sentencing a parent for breaching a school attendance order. Courts in England and Wales must already consider the impact on the child when determining sentences, as per Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

There is a series of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, that have not been addressed in the debate. As I did previously, I will write to noble Lords responding to those amendments. I hope that, given the assurances that I have provided, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment, and other noble Lords will not move theirs.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, that was a thoroughly satisfactory set of answers. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, this group again covers a large number of very technical amendments. Some of them appear to me to be at the more speculative rather than the probing end of the spectrum. They highlight a number of issues in relation to home-educating families and home visits, but the majority of these suggestions, as put in these amendments, would be very challenging for any Government to justify in terms of the potential resources that would be required to implement them.

My noble friend Lord Lucas rightly raised the issues around home visits and the pressure that they put on families. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that local authorities understand that too and would use those powers when necessary, and always in the best interests of the child. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, the voice of the child is key in creating a supportive, responsive and effective safeguarding and educational environment. I believe that the best way for a local authority to ensure that a child’s education is both suitable and safe is to meet with the child in the child’s home. We want to ensure that local authorities are able to capture and appropriately consider the views of children, so advice on how to conduct these visits sensitively, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, rightly suggested is required, will be a key focus of our statutory guidance.

In terms of the ask on parents, we have aimed for this to be proportionate and at the right intervals. The purpose is to minimise the duration any child is in receipt of unsuitable education. The compulsory information is what is required for a local authority to undertake existing responsibilities related to education suitability and safeguarding. It is not intended to be disruptive to the parents, who will still be able to focus on providing a suitable education for their child.

The amendments in this group seek to make changes to the ability of a local authority to request to visit the home and to limit the potential impact on home-educating families. They also seek to make provision concerning how home educators may engage with and would like to be treated by national and local government.

I am going to suggest that the amendments brought by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, beginning with Amendment 406, might be suitable for me to write to noble Lords about. Several of them fall within the category defined by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, as being at the “speculative end” of the spectrum. I hope I would be able to either reassure noble Lords or identify why they would not be suitable to be carried forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Storey, makes a broader point with respect to Amendment 417 about holidays, and I am sure this is something that we cannot solve here this evening, but I recognise the concerns that parents have.

I will deal with the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Amendment 353 seeks to remove the local authority’s power to request to visit a child at home to determine whether a school attendance order should be served. I hope I have already identified the approach that we will expect local authorities to take with respect to visits. This ability to request to visit the child at home allows the local authority to see the environment in which home education is being provided and to meet the child. Without this, local authorities may not be able to form a comprehensive view of whether the home environment is conducive to the child’s education. Parents will be able to refuse such a request, but, if they do, the local authority must consider this refusal to be a relevant factor when determining whether to issue a school attendance order.

Amendments 354 and 355 would require a local authority to obtain a court order to request to visit a child at home and to consider a child’s reaction to persons in authority when determining whether to serve a school attendance order. A court order would be unnecessary as the local authority would only be making a request, which parents have a right to refuse. On the point about sensitivity, though, I can assure noble Lords that our statutory guidance will provide further steers to help local authorities sensitively conduct visits, and we will consider whether additional support is needed, such as training for local authority staff.

I hope that I have assured noble Lords that the ability to request a visit is an important opportunity for the local authority, but that these visits will be carried out sensitively, and, if necessary, we will provide further statutory guidance on how that should happen. I will respond to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Wei, in writing to noble Lords.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I am grateful for the Minister’s response to my amendments. I would be grateful for a brief response to the amendments put down by my noble friend Lord Wei—just a confirmation, I suspect, when it comes to Amendment 387, of the recognition that there is a lot to say about the methodology of home education and the curriculum, and similarly, on Amendment 393, confirmation that the timing of educational progress, which should in principle be respected, can form part of a suitable education.

I have met a very capable young Oxford undergraduate who did not begin to write until they were 13. Having learned entirely through other methods and found writing extremely difficult, he was able to move on to a keyboard aged 13 and get himself eventually to Oxford. The generality, which is picked up in my noble friend’s amendment, of not beginning formal education until seven is very common on the continent. There are structures which do not impose reading, writing and arithmetic before that age and which succeed on a national level.

The understanding that the Government recognise that there are other routes to educational success, and that this is something that local authorities do not understand, is of general interest, rather more so than some of my noble friend’s more focused amendments.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

On those points, I hope I can reassure the noble Lord that the law is already clear. We have discussed during the course of the debate that parents have the right to educate their children using the methods, approaches and content they think best, provided that the education being received is suitable and safe. The point, though, is that local authorities must be able to assess that education to establish whether or not it is. The Bill does not give local authorities any additional powers to regulate the content of home education.

On the point about the nature of education, we believe that a child must be provided with a suitable education from the age of five. Of course, the point about home education is that it would be up to parents, assuming that that education is suitable, to determine what sort of education was being provided to a child of five.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, as we are in the closing straight. Can the Government confirm that they accept that flexibility of approach is something that will happen? If we look laterally—says the dyslexic—at special educational needs, that is often what is required there. Some of the problems come from the fact that there is a structure that one is supposed to be doing, but not everybody learns like that. Can the Government confirm that this is something which should be worked across the education system?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I have just confirmed that, and we have talked about it at various different times with respect to home education. I completely accept that one of the reasons why parents want to home-educate is to provide different and more flexible approaches to the way in which children learn. The most appropriate methods for learning and teaching will have to be at the heart of not just the Government’s reforms to special educational needs and disabilities but the very hard work that teachers and schools do for those children.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments relate to children, particularly those with education, health and care plans, and the use of school attendance orders. If I understood correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, argued through amendments in earlier groups and Amendments 359A and 366A in this group that these children should be excluded from the school attendance order regime. I outlined my concerns, which remain the same, about introducing inconsistency into a system where we already have incredible variability in how school attendance orders are used.

I have spoken to families who have a child with an education, health and care plan who are considering educating them at home. They have expressed concerns that the local authority can be particularly resistant to that because of the financial costs, which are sometimes related to the physical and medical therapies—health therapies—that a child might need. It would help if the Minister could comment on those fears. Equally, a child in receipt of an EHCP clearly has more complicated educational needs and it is entirely reasonable that the local authority should consider that carefully and ensure that the parents are able to deliver on their wish to support their child at home.

I confess I am unclear what material difference Amendment 360 would make to the Bill, but maybe the Minister will shed light.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, as I said previously, the school attendance order process is an existing process that is absolutely essential to provide children in unsuitable education a route to suitable education through regular attendance at a school.

In speaking to the amendments in group 15, I turn to Amendments 360 and 361, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. They seek to require a local authority to review rather than amend an education, health and care plan where the authority is required to serve a school attendance order in respect of a child and the plan does not specify the name of a school. If a local authority is serving a school attendance order, it has determined that the child is not receiving a suitable education and that the situation must be resolved. In this situation, it is right that the education, health and care plan be amended to name a school and that the school attendance order reflect this. This will enable the child to be enrolled in that school without delay.

The noble Lord may be concerned that parents will not have the opportunity to influence the school named in the order and the education, health and care plan. I reassure him that local authorities will still be required to follow the processes outlined in Regulation 22 of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014. These regulations require that local authorities send parents a notice outlining the changes to the plan. Additionally, the child’s parents can request a review of the plan at any point if they believe that the school is not meeting their child’s needs.

Amendment 366, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would remove the right to refer questions on school attendance orders in Wales to Welsh Ministers and delete the clause preserving the existing education, health and care plan framework. Parents must have a right to appeal a local authority decision to refuse to revoke a school attendance order, regardless of whether that local authority is in England or Wales. The mirror provisions in the Bill reflect our commitment to making the process as consistent as possible for families in both nations.

As previously mentioned, parents of children on education, health and care plans already have recourse to have the school on a school attendance order amended. The amendment would mean that duplicate processes would run concurrently, potentially resulting in confusion for local authorities, parents and schools.

I turn now to Amendments 359A and 366A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. All children deserve a suitable education. School attendance orders therefore need to apply to all children. It would not be practical to remove that option from local authorities for particular children, limiting the available courses of action to secure a child’s education. A local authority should ensure that the school named in an order is right for the needs of the child in question.

We recognise, as I said earlier, that some pupils will be impacted by issues such as emotionally based school avoidance. Our guidance is clear that schools should work with the child and their family to remove barriers to attendance and build strong and trusting relationships. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I will speak to this amendment in group 16, which is about the right to home-educate. I reiterate—it feels right to be doing this at the end of this debate, as I did at the start—that parents have the right to educate their child in the way that best suits their needs, if that education is suitable. The Bill does not change that.

Amendment 378, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to protect a parent’s right to home-educate in the event of a national emergency or an authoritarian Government. First, this amendment would be ineffective, as Parliament is sovereign. Any law passed by a current Parliament can be changed or repealed by a future Parliament. However, existing legislation is clear that most parents have the right to educate their child otherwise than at school provided that the education their child receives is both safe and suitable. This Government support that right. I hope that, on that basis of reassurance, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 378 withdrawn.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 10th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, as the Committee knows, school attendance every day is critical for the success of pupils. During Covid, the previous Government introduced the collection of attendance data at a pupil level twice a day— initially on a voluntary basis for all schools in England and now on a mandatory basis. We have among the best attendance data in the world, which allows every school in the country to understand the patterns of attendance and absence within their own pupil cohort and compared to the other schools in their local authority. I thank the Government for continuing the work that we started in this area and commend the officials who are responsible for producing such accessible and practical help for schools.

I argue that the systems that have been built within the Department for Education and that are being used more and more by schools mean that they can already analyse the impact on attendance not just of a factory shutdown but—perhaps more relevant for today—of a tube strike, bad weather or many other factors, and pretty much in real time. Therefore, I am not sure that Amendment 426B is needed. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, was suggesting that there should be more flexibility for school attendance, but I do not agree with him. The evidence that the department has produced is clear on the impact of missing even apparently small amounts of time on, for example, GCSE results, and we need to respect that evidence.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Holmes for setting out the purpose of his Amendment 499. He will forgive that I did not quite understand it in the way that he had presented it. My understanding, which perhaps the Minister will confirm, is that a considerable amount of diversity is already accommodated within schools. I have certainly visited schools where children are able to take time out of the classroom, particularly those with an education, health and care plan—very often that plan sets out the details of the flexibility that they require.

More broadly, there is extensive guidance and practical help to local authorities, admissions authorities and all the other groups referred to in this amendment. The department has been particularly proactive in this area and has encouraged those schools that are succeeding in turning the tide on attendance to share their insights with those that are struggling. Very often, it is about those positive actions that they take, such as putting on more after-school clubs, for example, or calling parents, when a child has had a particularly good series of days of attendance, with a message of congratulations. I absolutely understand and respect my noble friend’s concern about this issue, but respectfully suggest that his amendment is not needed.

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

My Lords, this Government are determined to break down barriers to opportunity by supporting every child to achieve and thrive at school. We know the impact that any absence can have on a pupil. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is right that even small bits of absence, particularly when added up over a child’s career, can disproportionately impact on that child’s achievement and, of course, create disruption in the classroom for other pupils.

That is why I am very pleased that, thanks to the efforts of the sector, absence is moving in the right direction; children are attending over 3.1 million more days this year compared to last and over 100,000 fewer children are persistently absent. However, this still leaves around one in five pupils currently missing 10% or more of school, which is why, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, says, there has been considerable focus on this which, as she also says, builds on the work done by the last Government. In fact, she in particular has worked on developing the sort of data to enable comparison and monitoring of progress.

In addition, the department has developed an attendance toolkit, alongside the data tools, to help support schools identify the drivers of absence and adopt effective practice to improve attendance for all children, including the most vulnerable. We have launched an attendance and behaviour programme, with strong schools offering support to others to improve their practice. We have held 12 conferences, attended by around 3,000 leaders from secondary schools, trusts and local authorities to help drive that change.

Amendment 426B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, seeks to create a duty on the Secretary of State to conduct a review into the effects of factory shutdowns on school attendance. We acknowledge, as the noble Lord says, that school attendance rates in particular locations can be influenced by a variety of external factors. However, schools and local authorities are best placed to identify those area-specific issues and take steps to mitigate them. In general, the school year is structured to provide plenty of time for holidays and family time outside term time, but schools and local authorities also have considerable flexibility to plan term dates and can hold inset days and other occasional days at times of the year suited to the specific needs of families in their area.

Amendment 499 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, seeks to require the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice on attendance. I accept his point about the need to recognise the different needs of children in our schools, which we have talked about in various other groups in Committee. On his call for a standardised approach setting out the requirements and roles of those outlined in the amendment, there is already statutory guidance which sets out in detail those roles and responsibilities for all the institutions and persons listed in the amendment in relation to improving school attendance.

The department published the Working Together to Improve School Attendance guidance in 2022 following a full consultation and it was updated in August 2024. This guidance takes a “support first” approach to improving school attendance and is now widely known by the sector following extensive work by the department to promote and embed its contents and share best practice from around the country. It will be updated as needed in future. Introducing a separate code of practice, as this amendment proposes, would duplicate this statutory guidance that we already have in place, risking confusion and waste. I hope that, for the reasons I have outlined, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I preface my remarks on these amendments by saying that I do not recognise the Dickensian school world that my noble friend describes. I would encourage him to visit any of the schools that I have visited, led by the noble Lords, Lord Nash, Lord Knight and Lord Hampton, and my noble friend Lord Agnew. In case anyone is thinking that I think only about academies, at my school of joy, Stanley Road Primary School in Oldham, the children are bursting with pride at what they achieve, in a clearly very deprived community. I acknowledge and thank all those involved in delivering education and joy to our children across our schools.

My noble friend’s Amendment 426D seeks to create a mechanism for sharing best practice between local authorities on home education. The principle of sharing best practice is, of course, an excellent one, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Storey, when he says that it is perhaps disproportionate for the Secretary of State to require this report. There is nothing preventing local authorities trying to learn from one another already. Local conditions vary considerably on, for example, the availability of special schools between local authorities. The conclusions that could be drawn from the data that my noble friend suggests should be analysed could be misleading.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on Amendment 426E and the care that schools take to support children. There is a wider point here. It could be argued that a lot of particularly criminal prosecutions of a child’s parents could result in harm to the child, particularly if the child’s principal carer is sent to prison, and that is something that the courts already consider. My noble friend’s amendment would cut across many other areas of legislation and some of the principles that underpin our criminal justice system in a way that is not realistic. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify both these points when she comments.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly associate myself with the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about the excellent work happening in schools around the country and the enormous pride, enjoyment and achievement that children experience in those schools. However, I would add that, in last week’s lengthy debates—and in those before the Recess—on the provisions in the Bill on children not in school registers, the Government were very clear that there is a right for parents in this country to educate children at home. In fact, as we discussed, we are probably one of the most permissive regimes of any country in allowing you to educate your child at home. What children not in school registers are about is ensuring that the education is suitable and children do not fall through gaps by virtue of claiming a suitable home education when that is not what is being delivered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will keep my comments brief. We have had an excellent debate and these Benches support the aims of this clause: to ensure that children learn in settings, where they provide all or the majority of a child’s education, that are safe and regulated. I have a couple of technical points of clarification that might win the prize today for the most boring question asked of the Minister. I confess that I have read and reread the Bill and the policy notes and still do not quite follow it.

Section 92 of the Education and Skills Act 2008, which this clause amends, includes institutions that offer part-time education within the definition of an independent educational institution. I am unclear what the status of those institutions will be in future and why they do not form part of the revised definition. If the Minister wants to write, that would be fine. I am sure there is a simple and obvious answer that I have missed.

The regulation-making powers in this clause, if I have understood them correctly, are much wider than those in the 2008 Act. New Sections 92(3)(c) and 92(3)(d) seem to give the Secretary of State unlimited flexibility to redefine full-time education without proper scrutiny in Parliament. I suspect the Minister will tell me that it will use the affirmative procedure, but all of us know that that is very restricted scrutiny.

I am very pleased that my noble friend Lord Lucas has raised unregistered alternative provision, which benefits from neither safeguarding nor educational oversight, in his Amendment 427. It is extraordinary, as other noble Lords have reflected, that, rather like unregulated provision, we put very vulnerable children and young people in unregistered provision without any safeguards available. I agree with him that we would ideally have no unregistered provision but, at a minimum—this also applies to Amendment 451 from the noble Lord, Lord Storey—we would have some safeguarding regulation of those settings, even if children were going there for a short period. There is always the infamous “Dave the car mechanic” with whom some children apparently spend time. We should at least have appropriate safeguarding checks and I am interested in what the Minister thinks about that.

I now turn to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, all of whom have raised issues that can arise for children whose parents choose an educational path that aligns with their religious tradition. The Minister and the whole House have heard both sides of the argument very clearly today and the valid concerns that have been raised by faith groups about the impact of the Government’s legislation on their communities. Those were eloquently put in particular by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Lord, Lord Glasman—who I promise we will still listen to however much he speaks.

I close by aligning myself with my noble friend Lady Morgan of Coates. We want to retain what I think the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, described as the “precious” tolerance that many of us, including my own family, have benefited from this country welcoming us with, but also to ensure that the rights of every child are upheld. I hope very much that the Minister will put her not inconsiderable abilities to the task.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that she is right—those questions were very boring, but I am sure that they were none the less important. I will write to her to respond to those specific points. The rest of the debate, however, was not boring, and was also important. I hope that I will be able to respond to the wide range of issues that have been raised and the conflicting positions that are part of what we need to wrestle with in taking this legislation forward.

This group of amendments impact Clause 36 and concern which settings are and are not brought into the system of regulation found in Part 4, Chapter 1 of the Education and Skills Act 2008. It might therefore be helpful if I first outline the intent of Clause 36. As I say, the clause concerns the settings regulated by that framework. Among other things, regulated settings are required to register with the Secretary of State and be subject to regular inspection against prescribed standards. At present, that framework applies to independent schools.

Clause 36 expands this framework further. Under this clause, settings will be required to register with the Secretary of State if they provide full-time education to five or more children of compulsory school age or one or more such children with an EHCP or one who is looked after by a local authority. This change will bring more settings that provide a full-time education into this well-established and effective regime. Typically, the settings impacted by this change will be those that operate during, but not necessarily only during, the school day, and we will produce guidance to help those potentially impacted by this change understand what is expected of them.

For understandable reasons, a significant part of this debate has focused on the issue of Haredi children and yeshivas. I will respond to that, but in doing so, I reiterate the point that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, is just wrong in suggesting that this legislation is aimed at yeshivas. As I have said, this measure is about ensuring that, where settings are providing a full-time education to children, they are registered and subject to regular inspection and meet certain standards. I accept that there has been concern among the community, and I will respond to that now.

Let me be clear that this measure does not presuppose an inherent problem with a child being educated at a yeshiva or the quality of home education. It is about ensuring the suitability of settings that provide full-time education to children. On the basis of how we define “full-time” and “engagement”, we intend to produce guidance to assist people in understanding whether the education setting they run needs to register with the Secretary of State. It is likely that this guidance will be similar to our existing approach and therefore the starting point will be that settings operating during the day for more than 18 hours per week will be regulated. I say in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, that I very much doubt that she attended Sunday school for 18 hours per week.

I emphasise that in expecting institutions operating for those hours to register, there is no requirement in the Independent School Standards, or in standards akin to those that we will bring forward for these institutions, for a setting to provide a wholly secular education. There is no requirement for them to deliver the national curriculum, for example. In response to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, there is considerable flexibility provided around the curriculum. These standards are well-established minimum standards which already apply to many registered settings that do not consider themselves to classically be schools. The regulatory regime gives Ministers flexibility to decide on which standards apply to different types of regulated setting. We will carefully consider options on the standards that will be used to regulate settings. In doing so, I assure noble Lords that there has been considerable engagement with the Haredi community up to this point—I have met with the Yeshiva Liaison Committee and my officials have ongoing engagement with the community. My former colleague Stephen Morgan met the yeshiva community on these issues and we undertake to continue that engagement as we clarify the nature of the regulations and the extent of those that will be included within it.

It is right that full-time educational settings are registered and subject to regular inspection. This will lead to children who currently attend these settings learning in a regulated and safe setting which is subject to regular inspection. For that reason, we believe that Clause 36 should form part of the Bill and is an important improvement on the current situation, as has been recognised by several noble Lords in this debate.

There are several amendments which seek to further change the application of this regulatory framework. Both Amendments 427A and 427C seek to exempt settings which provide religious instruction. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, via Amendment 427A, appears to wish any setting which provides any form of religious instruction in addition to education elsewhere to be exempt from the regime in the 2008 Act. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, in introducing Amendment 427C, seeks to exempt settings which provide only religious instruction or guidance to children of compulsory school age, provided certain other conditions are met.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and others, that in this country we are rightly tolerant of faith education. I remember the arguments that my noble friend Lady Morris had in defending that principle when we served in the previous Government in the Department for Education. We should be proud as a country of the many faith schools that operate. That principle has been supported by successive Governments, and in each of those Governments we have seen support for the development of new faith schools as well as for the protection of those that existed. I hope no noble Lords believe that this is in some way an attack on the ability to deliver a religious education, either within a school setting or as a freedom for parents as part of their right to home-educate their child. This provision is about full-time education, not about the religious approach of the institution.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 10th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I shall briefly talk generally about all these amendments, which I and my party are not supporting. I ought to declare an interest as a governor of the King’s Academy, Liverpool. I was there at the beginning, when academies were started for a particular reason by the then Labour Government in very deprived communities and were then seized on by the coalition Government, including by David Laws from my party. We would sit through endless meetings, where there were always attacks on the maintained sector, about how wonderful the academies were. I never, during those early days—or even recently—heard the noble Lord, Lord Nash, who is not in his place, or the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, who is not in his place, say, “This academy is doing a really good job but, guess what? This maintained school is doing a really good job”. I never heard any criticism of any other academy. People can nod their heads, but if you look at the record, that was the case.

I remember us pushing, for example, that we should inspect multi-academies. Oh no, we could not do that. I remember trying to suggest that we have an external look at the finances of multi-academy trusts—“Oh no, you can’t do that”. Thank goodness, we have moved on considerably since those days, and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, because, during her time as Education Minister, she went to visit maintained schools, and her language and the language of her party has changed considerably. I very much appreciate that. If there is a breach—I am not sure how serious or how weak the breaches are—the Secretary of State should be looking at it and making the final decision. It should not be just left to the academy or the multi-academy trusts themselves.

One recalls that “Panorama” documentary about how proprietors of academies—it was a limited number, thank goodness—were ensuring that some of the work for their academies was going to companies that they owned and that were their own companies. So a repair or construction company would get the work from that academy. It would not go out for tender. There was a big scandal on “Panorama” about it. If that is wrong, action needs to be taken. I do not know what these breaches are, or how serious or wide they are, but it should not be just left to the academy to sort out. It should be sorted out by the Secretary of State and by her Minister in the House of Lords.

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

My Lords, I turn to the amendments in this group tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Before I get into the detail of the clause and the amendments, I say to her that we believe that she may have been reading from an old version of the policy notes, because they were updated when they came to the House of Lords, and the policy notes are therefore correct in relation to the items that she was talking about. If she wants to check whether that is the case and drop me a line, I would be more than happy to follow that up if it is not the case.

This group covers the clause relating to ensuring effective oversight and accountability of academy trusts. Clause 49 introduces a power for the Secretary of State to issue a direction to an academy trust where it is failing to comply with its legal duties or acting unreasonably when exercising these powers. Currently, when a trust is in breach of a legal duty, the Secretary of State can only issue a termination warning notice, which may be disproportionate for significant but isolated breaches. This measure will allow the Secretary of State to direct academy trusts to ensure that they meet their legal responsibilities and to address instances of unreasonable conduct where necessary.

It offers a clear and proportionate route to ensure compliance. If a trust does not respond to a direction, the Secretary of State may apply to the courts to ensure the matter is resolved, reflecting similar powers already in place for maintained schools. This will be used, where appropriate, to help implement key provisions in the Bill, such as those relating to curriculum, admissions and uniform, if necessary.

Most academy trusts perform well and meet their legal obligations. However, where they fall short, the Government must be able to act in a targeted and proportionate way. Clause 49 allows for early engagement, proportionate intervention and enforcement through the courts only when necessary.

Amendment 445ZB, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, proposes a statutory requirement for an annual statement to Parliament on the use of this power. The Government are of course fully in favour of transparency but already publish directions and other notices on GOV.UK in a timely and detailed manner. I put on record the Government’s commitment to maintaining this approach to transparency. An annual report would duplicate this process and add no further value, while adding an unnecessary administrative burden.

Amendments 444A, 445ZC and 445ZD, all in the name of the noble Baroness, propose replacing the Secretary of State’s direction-making power with a notice procedure. These amendments replace the Government’s clear and authoritative direction-making power with a more convoluted system of self-policing duties and a notice procedure. In practice, it risks delaying intervention.

Effective oversight cannot rely on academy trusts policing themselves. The Secretary of State must retain the ability to act swiftly and decisively when serious concerns arise, particularly where trusts fail to meet their legal obligations or act unreasonably when exercising those duties. The notice procedure is very similar to the power as drafted, except it does not include the ability to issue a direction in cases of unreasonable exercise of a power. Therefore, the clause as drafted is more effective than the proposed notice procedure. When the Secretary of State writes to a trust before she decides to issue a direction, it will outline the breach, the rationale for intervention and the suggested actions to remedy the breach, and will seek representations.

Finally in this group, Amendments 445, 444B, 444C and 445ZA tabled by noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seek to limit the scope of Clause 49. These amendments propose to restrict the Secretary of State’s ability to issue directions to cases where a specific legal duty has been breached. In doing so, they would remove the ability to intervene where a trust acts, or proposes to act, unreasonably in the exercise of its powers, even if no explicit duty has been contravened. This would narrow the intended reach of the clause.

The Government’s intention is to ensure that a proportionate intervention is possible not only when there is a clear breach of duty but also when a trust’s conduct in the use of its powers is manifestly unreasonable. However, I have heard concerns raised by noble Lords about this clause—particularly the concerns that these amendments seek to address with regard to the broad scope of the clause. I am considering potential solutions that would preserve our ability to intervene effectively while respecting the autonomy of trusts, and I look forward to bringing a solution back on Report that addresses these concerns.

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

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, we have had two rays of sunshine in one day; we should celebrate, at this late hour. We now know how to wear the Minister down. We will be starting at 9 am next week. In all seriousness, as the Minister can hear, I am extremely grateful; it is not just tiredness. There are some issues with this clause, so I will not belabour those but will just welcome very much her closing remarks.

I thank my noble friends Lady Evans, Lady Spielman and Lord Leigh for their contributions. I offer, as my noble friend Lord Leigh did, my thanks to the Leigh Academies Trust for taking on part of what was a very troubled school on the Isle of Sheppey, which is a particularly challenging community. We wish the trust and the pupils every success.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, what draws me to say something here is Amendment 446. It is an interesting idea that is inspired by academies, if you like. When you have a successful maintained school and it is close, you take over and you have a nice successful model that is still in the maintained sector.

We have been saying, in effect, that we accept that academies are part of the landscape. The fact is that they are not the only successful part of the landscape, because a maintained school must have done reasonably well to remain a maintained school, so it has been successful. If we are interested in success—and not running up a political flag, whatever colour we choose—it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

Let us also remember that some of the worst schools now will be academies because they have been failing and they come down, and some of the most successful ones are the ones that jumped ship because they had nice catchment areas and all was going well, so they became independent. That is one of the realities. So I hope that, when we look at how we improve schools that go wrong, we have other options because, if we dig into the academy system, we can find serial failure even there.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I turn now to the amendments in group 10, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Bennett, and my noble friend Lord Blunkett. Although my noble friend is not here, I will respond to that amendment, given that it was addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman.

We have heard much today about the positive impact that high-quality trusts have made on the educational outcomes of children. This Government acknowledge these achievements—in fact, I have done so on every occasion that I have had the opportunity to, as has my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, as quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh.

What we are concerned about is how we can ensure improvement. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, was right when he said that what we need here is a range of appropriate methods in order to ensure the quickest possible improvement. That is what the Government are aiming to do here. While many academies and trusts have driven improvement throughout the system, academisation is not necessarily a panacea. In fact, even when sponsored academies are excluded, pupil attainment in multi-academy trusts and maintained schools is similar.

Furthermore, the process of converting these schools can in itself be slow. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is right to say that that is because, in many cases, it is very complex. Nevertheless, that may well be a period in which the improvement that we would all want to see has not been able to be pushed. Around 40% of maintained schools identified for conversion take over a year to become academies—time during which pupils continue to experience underperformance. It is for those reasons that Clause 50 has been included in the Bill.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister spoke about 40% of schools identified for “conversion”. I just wonder, for the sake of Hansard, whether she meant “sponsorship”. Conversion is a choice to become an academy, and if there is a delay, my experience is that that might be situated somewhere in Sanctuary Buildings’ capacity, whereas sponsorship is when a school has failed. Maybe she would like to clarify that in writing.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I will clarify that in writing. I maintain the point, which the noble Baroness herself conceded, that often the conversion process, whatever prompted it in the first place, is not as speedy as we would want in order to drive improvement. Clause 50 has been included in the Bill so that the swiftest action can be taken to improve schools causing concerns.

For maintained schools that lack the capacity to improve—currently two-thirds of the total of schools that fail their Ofsted inspections—we intend, as has been highlighted during the debate today, to continue to issue academy orders, because they need a fresh start. Where Ofsted has determined that a school has the capacity to improve, from September 2026 we will rapidly deploy RISE teams—our school improvement support—as the first intervention rather than defaulting to structural change.

I will address the opposition from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to Clause 50 standing part of the Bill. Clause 50 replaces the current duty on the Secretary of State to issue an academy order for any maintained school judged to be in a statutory category of concern by Ofsted with a discretionary power. This represents, as I have suggested, a deliberate and considered shift in our approach. It reflects the Government’s commitment to a more flexible and swift approach to school improvement. As Rebecca Boomer-Clark of Lift Schools recently put it, structures do not raise standards, people do. Strong schools working together in strong partnerships will continue to make the difference. Clause 50 gives effect to this shift. It enables a more responsive approach, one that prioritises timely support through RISE, while retaining the option of structural change if a school does not show significant improvement after 18 months of targeted support.

Amendment 446, in the name of my noble friend Lord Blunkett, seeks to introduce a statutory presumption of structural intervention, through either structural change or merger when a school is in special measures, but would give the Secretary of State discretion to act differently if that is their judgement. As I am sure my noble friend would recognise, Clause 50 already provides the Secretary of State with the wide-ranging flexibility to intervene as they think best, specifically on merging schools. The Secretary of State already has the power to require a maintained school to take steps to join a federation, which is similar in effect to a merger. We do not believe that my noble friend’s amendment is required.

Amendments 445B, 446A and 446B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seek to retain or reintroduce a statutory duty to issue academy orders, albeit with varying conditions or constraints. Each of these amendments would, in different ways, undermine the core purpose of Clause 50, which is to provide the Secretary of State with the flexibility to determine the most appropriate intervention for each school based on its unique circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I am taking some encouragement from the Minister’s remarks. I wrote down and underlined that the Government have no immediate plans. That is interesting, because it is a statement of a possibility for the future. We all know how hard it is to get parliamentary time to get Bills through Parliament—the Government will certainly attest to that. I ask the Minister to consider future-proofing. Would it not be a good idea to provide the potential here, without the necessity to activate it, and set up some mechanism for the possibility of getting the kind of diversity that she says she is looking for?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I also said that the proposals run contrary to our policy. I would not want the noble Baroness to run away with anything that is unlikely to happen—so no.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I am very reassured by the Minister’s final remarks. I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, was in the Chamber when I tried to respond to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted. It is important to set aside one’s ideology and look at the results, and at the people who are leading those results, in our schools all around the country and celebrate them

I thank my noble friends Lady Spielman and Lord Leigh for their reinforcement and support for my amendments. I absolutely agree with my noble friend Lady Spielman that we need a system with clarity which, in her words, is brisk, well-implemented and with minimum delay. That is important and, I think, what the Minister hopes will happen.

I appreciate the clarity that the Minister brought in relation to Ofsted judgments which say that the school in question lacks the capacity to improve. It will be interesting to hear my noble friend Lady Spielman’s reflections on that and whether that puts great pressure on Ofsted inspectors to avoid that judgment. But that is for another day and another time.

The Minister makes a fair point about the 2RI+ power and the fact that those decisions—which I have to say I feel quite proud of—were not judicially reviewed. The context is perhaps a little different, but the Minister has brought helpful clarity to the Government’s intention. Until we see the proof of the pudding, we will remain concerned. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

We looked at non-teaching senior leaders and in some single academy trusts—as I said, I do not want to exaggerate it—they were taking well over 10% of GAG pooling, so it was less about a big number and more about effective use of resources. It is a genuine governance issue and I hope the Minister agrees with me, particularly, as she rightly said, when it is combined with educational underperformance. I would defend those CEOs who are achieving extraordinary educational outcomes, because on a per pupil basis we are talking about just a few pounds per pupil and I would not want to try to save money there and see those outcomes deteriorate. So I commend my Amendment 448.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, we turn now to the amendments in the final group, group 11, which relate to teacher pay and conditions. Clause 51 supports our commitment towards creating a statutory pay floor, guaranteeing that all teachers in scope will not be offered pay below a minimum level, giving all schools the flexibility to attract and retain the teachers they need.

I turn to Amendment 447A in the name of my noble friend Lady Bousted; I am very glad that we got to this group, so that my noble friend was able to propose her amendment. She has been a stolid supporter of this debate, not only today but during Committee, and I recognise that and thank her. Her amendment proposes extending the remit of the School Teachers’ Review Body to include academy trust chief executive officers. We very much recognise and welcome my noble friend’s expertise in education and note that she raises an extremely important point: we must ensure that public money drives the best outcomes for children. We set very clear expectations for robust processes and justifiable salaries when recruiting executives. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and in fact from my noble friend, about the actions of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew; I suspect that maintaining that focus on value for money is an important part of this debate for all noble Lords.

Furthermore, for transparency and accountability, the department also engages with trusts where executive pay is deemed an outlier, publishing the names on GOV.UK. I have not, due to my policy responsibilities, signed any letters or had any meetings without coffee, as it appears have rightly happened, but, as the noble Baroness rightly argues for, I have no doubt that the department is maintaining the pressure to ensure that public money is effectively spent and reflects improvements and standards for children rather than the interests of the leadership of trusts.

I recognise that drive for action. I reassure my noble friend that the department works with trusts that do not demonstrate value for money or improved pupil outcomes. We will monitor our approach, ensuring proportionality and impact when keeping that under review.

Amendment 448, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would remove the statutory ceiling on teacher pay and allow maintained schools to depart from the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document. I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment, which is in the spirit of what our clauses attempt to achieve, but there is a significant difference between our clause and what the noble Baroness is proposing.

We both agree on the importance of removing the pay ceiling, but it does not need to be in the Bill to achieve that. There is a well-respected process through the Education Act 2002 which already provides for the Secretary of State to determine pay levels through secondary legislation. That is precisely what we intend to do following Royal Assent and a statutory consultation process, through the usual schoolteachers’ review body process. The Bill and our subsequent reforms to the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document will achieve the aim of creating a pay floor with no ceiling and increasing innovation for all schools.

Amendment 448A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, would expand teachers’ rights to be accompanied at disciplinary or grievance meetings by representatives of professional bodies which are not trade unions. I appreciate the concern of the noble Lord and others in raising this matter. As we have heard, noble Lords are aware that the Department for Business and Trade is responsible for the policy in this area.

Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 already provides adequate protections in respect of the right to accompaniment for all workers, including teachers. I am aware of the outcome of the vote on Report of the Employment Rights Bill on a similar amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and that the Department for Business and Trade will set out its latest position on that issue in due course.

With regard to teachers specifically, we believe that creating a statutory right for teachers separate to the process that I have just outlined covering all workers could raise concerns under the European Convention on Human Rights, as it would treat them more favourably than other workers without clear justification. We therefore have no plans to amend the position for teachers.

These clauses are about ensuring that the Secretary of State has the right tools to uphold standards and protect pupils, while also supporting the teaching profession through fair and consistent pay arrangements. I hope that given the assurances and additional information that I have provided, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard, this group and the next one cover a range of issues in relation to admissions. My sense is that most of the amendments in this group are not really needed in practice, but the Minister will no doubt clarify.

In relation to Amendment 449 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, as my noble friend made clear, each individual school publishes its admissions policy on its website. I accept his point that local authorities no longer publish as many comprehensive booklets as perhaps they once did. It is reasonable to expect that parents should be able to look at different websites and the admissions policies of the schools that they are interested in sending their children to.

Turning to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, my understanding is that under the fair access protocol, children in need of a school place will be found one. While I absolutely respect the noble Baroness’s concerns about the groups of children she described, I am not sure it is helpful that we should place a priority on one group of children over another, but rather that we see the right to education as fundamental for every child.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering’s Amendment 455 relates to admissions policies for children living in rural areas. My noble friend raised some valid points about the financial pressures that rural schools, and in particular very small rural schools, face, but I am just not sure that it would be appropriate for an analysis of those policies to be done in the department.

I turn to Amendment 456 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie. The noble Lord raises a valid point. There is a change in policy happening around the future ability of maintained free schools—although they will not be free schools in the sense that many of us understand—to be available, and that is different from what exists today for academies. So it is entirely fair of the noble Lord to probe the Government’s thinking on this.

As we heard, Amendment 457 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on school admissions policies, including an analysis of the proportion of places allocated based on faith-related criteria. Of course, as I said earlier, schools already publish their admissions policy, but I do not think they publish the outcomes in relation to faith-related criteria. Again, I am slightly puzzled about the value of doing this nationally as, obviously, parents typically look at schools in a pretty narrow geographic area close to where they live.

Finally, in relation to Amendment 475, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that off-rolling is not acceptable. In 2019, Ofsted defined off-rolling as

“the practice of removing a pupil from the school roll without using a permanent exclusion, when the removal is primarily in the best interests of the school, rather than the best interests of the pupil. This includes pressuring a parent to remove their child from the school roll”.

That aspect is clearly in the sights of the inspectorate, so I do not think that the noble Lord’s amendment is needed. The noble Lord also raised much wider issues around attendance, which go far beyond that definition of off-rolling, and I think that the new inspection framework from Ofsted, with its emphasis on inclusion, might serve to reassure the noble Lord that that continues to be in the sights of those who are responsible for holding our schools to account.

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

My Lords, the amendments in this first group cover admissions and related issues in relation to these clauses. This package of measures will help to ensure that decisions on place planning and admissions support the needs of communities and families while also supporting local authorities to deliver their statutory functions.

I turn first to Amendment 449 from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 457 from the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, which seek to ensure that admissions information is available to all parents. They would require the Secretary of State to publish information about schools admissions arrangements, including any faith-based arrangements. I hope to provide some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Admissions authorities are already required by the statutory school admissions code to publish their admissions arrangements on their school’s website, including the proportion of places that will be prioritised for pupils of faith, and ensure that parents can easily understand how admissions arrangements will be satisfied.

Admissions authorities must also provide information to enable local authorities to publish an annual admissions prospectus for parents. The code requires local authorities to publish this information for all schools via a composite prospectus. We believe that the existing approach is proportionate, reflects the diversity of admission arrangements and local circumstances and is not overly burdensome on schools or local authorities, while enabling parents to access the information they need about their local schools.

Amendment 455, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, seeks to insert a new clause to require a review of rural schools’ admissions policies. The admissions system already contains mechanisms to ensure that admissions policies meet local needs, including the policies of rural schools. Admissions authorities must consult locally before making changes, and anyone who considers a school’s admissions policy to be unfair or unlawful can object to the Schools Adjudicator.

Furthermore, our school travel policy ensures that no child is prevented from accessing education by a lack of transport. Local authorities must arrange free travel for children attending their nearest suitable school who could not walk there because of the distance or their special educational needs, disability or mobility problems, or due to route safety. The Government have also set out a plan to deliver better bus services and drive opportunity to underserved regions.

The noble Baroness talked in particular about the issue of the rural services delivery grant. In relation to that, the Government are committed to tackling the issues that matter to rural communities. We are allocating funding through improved needs formulae in 2025-26 to target funding where it is needed the most, investing in the priority services that people rely on the most. Places with significant rural populations will receive on average an almost 6% increase in their core spending power this financial year—a real-terms increase—and no council will see a reduction.

The rural services delivery grant does not properly account for need. In fact, many predominantly rural councils receive nothing from it. That is clearly not right. The Government consulted on proposals to repurpose this funding in the usual way, in the provisional 2025-26 settlement, but the Government are nevertheless keen to hear from councils about how best to consider the impact of rurality on the cost of services as part of the longer-term consultation on local authority funding reform, which was published in June.

Amendment 456 in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson seeks to apply the 50% faith admissions cap to new state-funded schools designated as having a faith character. We greatly value the contribution that faith schools make to our schools system and support the ability of faith schools to set faith-based oversubscription criteria. This can support parents wishing to have their child educated in line with their religious beliefs; it is for the admissions authorities of individual schools to decide whether to adopt such arrangements.

Many faith schools are oversubscribed, which suggests that parents value and want these schools. We also understand that the ability of faith schools to prioritise children of faith when they are oversubscribed—and of course it is only at the point at which a school is oversubscribed that these admissions criteria would bite—is important and, at the risk of disappointing my noble friends and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, we do not intend to change that approach at this time.

Removing the legal presumption that all new schools should be academies, which is what has brought about this issue, is intended to give local authorities the flexibility to make the best decisions to meet the needs of their communities. Decision-makers will carefully consider proposals from all groups and commission the right new schools to meet need and to ensure every child has the opportunity to achieve—

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I do not feel that my noble friend the Minister has answered the questions asked by my noble friend Lord Watson asked about why this is a change. I do not expect to make any progress right now, but I do think that, before Report, we will need to discuss it further.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am certainly happy to write to my noble friends and perhaps facilitate the opportunity for them to meet the new Schools Minister to discuss this particular issue.

I was in the process of saying that this relates to the new provisions around opening schools. In doing that, decision-makers will carefully consider proposals from all groups and commission the right new schools to meet need and to ensure every child has the opportunity to achieve and to thrive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Storey (LD)]

The Minister, when referring to Amendment 456 from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said there were no plans to make a change “at this time”. What does she mean by that? Does that mean that the Government will consider it in the future or that it is not going to happen at all?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I think I was pretty clear about the position that the Government take with respect to the admissions arrangements of faith schools, and it is not intended to change that.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

But the Government are changing that, my Lords. I was part of the debates where we arrived at the 50% figure. I remember the Catholic schools playing a very strong part in that debate. It was very much understood that the schools created could quite clearly have a strong religious character and be directed and run in that way but not becoming isolated parts of the community, fracturing it and separating it. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, one has only to look at Northern Ireland to see the difficulties caused by a fully segregated system.

We agreed a system for avoiding that. Why are the Government now going back on it? Where is the argument coming from? It does not appear to be coming from the Church of England—the right reverend Prelate has been silent on these amendments. We have not heard any other religious voices saying, “Thank you so much, this is what we want”. Who has been lobbying for this? Where is the pressure coming from for the Government to give in and make this change? It is not at all obvious—and the Government are not being open or clear about—what the motivation is or what outcome they wish for. Presumably, they are hoping that a collection of 100% religious character schools will be founded over the next year or two. Where are those schools intended to be? What kind of schools are they looking at? What future are the Government letting us in for? I really think they owe us some clarity and some openness on this so that we can understand what they are doing and what they intend to do to our society.

This is a really important set of issues. Binding us together as a nation has never been more important. We are threatened from various angles now. Why are the Government adding to that dissolution of our nation? I can see that I am not going to get anything out of the Minister now.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I will respond and, as I said, I will write. The noble Lord is enormously overstating the very specific circumstances to which these criteria would relate. This is not an invitation by the Government to enormously increase the number of faith schools. This is a requirement specifically relating to the provisions about opening a new school contained in the Bill. I will write to noble Lords about that point.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I look forward to that, but I very much regret that the settlement that we reached should be torn up in this way.

When it comes to my own Amendment 449, it is all very well for the Government to say that there should be a composite prospectus, but there is not one. It used to exist, absolutely, but that is not what is available now. If you look for an East Sussex composite prospectus, it is not there. What is there is a confusing passage among a collection of documents and websites; then it is back to the school and off to here or there. We have produced a system where the really diligent, intelligent, motivated parent can find their way through, but anyone—

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

In that case, East Sussex is not fulfilling the requirements of the statutory code that I spelled out in my response. I would be surprised if that were the case but, obviously, if it were, I would be willing to look into it. The Government have made clear the requirement both on schools to publish their admissions arrangements on their websites and on local authorities to publish a composite prospectus about the admissions arrangements of all the schools in their areas.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I have not done a complete survey, but I am not aware of a single local authority that does produce a composite prospectus in the old style any more. I absolutely take—

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord might have put quite a lot of emphasis on the “in the old style” expression there. I think the requirement is for this to be on a website. I am not sure that production of a written prospectus for all parents is necessarily something that we would require in this day and age, is it?

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

No, I would expect a website or maybe a PDF, but something containing the information that is supposed to make it possible for parents to go to one place and see the admissions criteria and how they work, for all the schools within the local authority that they might be interested in. This is widely not happening, and nor is that information available on school websites; I checked a few as the Minister had challenged on that and, no, I cannot find that either. There is supposed to be a system, but there is not so, yes, I will take up her invitation to pursue this afterwards. It is important that we get back to a system where ordinary, hard-pressed parents can easily find the information they need to make good decisions for their children.

I very much hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me at some stage that the admissions information will form part of the school’s profile, as talked about in the announcement that was made at the same time as the announcement of the new Ofsted systems. There is real promise in that. I should like it if she could tell me more about the Government’s plans for what should be in that profile and how that will evolve; I should be very grateful. But, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

If the Government reject my amendment, which would simply implement their own party’s legislation, we will all be left thinking that we should judge the Government by what they do and not by what they say. What do all the warm words about academies mean in reality if the actions of the Government go in the opposite direction? This is an acid test of their vision. I support the amendments in my name in this group and oppose Clause 56 standing part of the Bill.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I turn first to Clauses 54 and 55, the latter of which the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, opposes standing part of the Bill. Together, they extend local authorities’ current powers to direct maintained schools to admit a child to enable them to direct academies in the same way.

There are important elements of this Bill that are about future-proofing the system. As I explained last week when talking about the nature of the national curriculum, if, quite rightly, a majority of our schools, or schools that are teaching the majority of our children, are academies, and if, as we do as a Government, we want to continue the progress to see more academies developing and opening, we need to future-proof the system. At the moment, local authorities can direct admissions in the particular circumstances in which they need to do so in only half of schools, and in the future in even fewer schools than that. The proposals enable the school admissions code to set out additional circumstances in which directions can be made to ensure school places for vulnerable children can be secured more quickly and efficiently.

Enabling local authorities to direct into academies without needing to make a request via the Secretary of State will help to reduce delays in securing vulnerable children a school place. It is right, as the noble Baroness says, that there is a route to direct into an academy, but that requires making a request to the Secretary of State and an average, as I understand it, of 38 days for that to be determined. That is a long time for a vulnerable child to be without a school place.

These clauses will also create a more streamlined directions process for children who have come out of care, or where the fair access protocol—the local process to secure places for unplaced and vulnerable children—has failed to secure a child a school place. Together, these measures will help provide a more robust and consistent safety net for vulnerable children, ensuring that no child falls between the cracks.

Amendment 452 from the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, seeks to amend the circumstances in which local authorities can direct admissions and places certain requirements on academy admissions, and Amendment 452ZA, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, requires local authorities to not take into account a school’s academy status in these decisions. Noble Lords are, of course, absolutely right that it is important that these decisions are made in the best interests of the child and that impartiality between types of schools should be maintained.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, as I had to go out and take an urgent phone call during the debate, I think it would be wrong for me to comment.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, this third group of amendments relates to the opening of new schools, including new maintained schools, academies and free schools, and the financial governance of maintained schools—but not to the noble Lord’s amendment about local elections, so I will not respond to that.

Clause 57 relates to how new schools are opened, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, opposes it standing part of the Bill. The clause ends the legal presumption that new schools should be academy schools. It requires local authorities to invite proposals for academies and other types of school when they think a new school should be established and gives them the option to put forward their own proposals for new schools. The current system allows local authorities to propose new schools only as a last resort or in very limited circumstances. Local authorities hold the statutory responsibility to secure sufficient school places in their area, and it is right that we give them greater ability to fulfil that duty effectively. These changes will enable consideration of any local offer that meets the needs of children and families.

Amendment 480, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, relates to the opening of projects in the free schools pipeline. I understand the noble Baroness’s desire—and the passion and enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who, as others have said, has played an enormously important role in improving the quality of schools for many of the children who need it the most—to ensure that the approved free school projects open as planned. I know that trusts and local authorities commit significant time and energy to supporting these projects.

However, noble Lords will also understand the need to consider carefully the use of a limited amount of school capital. Agreeing the amendment would commit the Secretary of State to opening all projects in the current pipeline, regardless of whether they are still needed or represent value for money. That is why the department is giving careful consideration to these proposals in relation to the need for places, their value for money and the extent to which they provide a distinctive local offer. It would be wrong to spend funding on new schools that cannot be financially viable while existing schools urgently need that funding to improve the condition of their buildings.

Amendment 481, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, would require local-authority-maintained schools to have an annual external audit. In response to the noble Lord’s contribution, I am afraid I must clarify that he was wrong to state that maintained schools do not have to publish salaries over £100,000 and that they do not have to submit three-year budget plans. Those requirements were introduced by the last Government in 2021 following a consultation put out by the noble Lord as a Minister. He has had more of an impact even than he realises.

I nevertheless understand the points the noble Lord made about the responsibility on all school leaders to ensure that public money is being spent as effectively as possible in order to maximise the amount that can be spent directly on supporting and educating our children. However, the Government do not believe it is necessary to mandate all maintained schools to have an annual external audit. Maintained school accounts form part of local authority’s accounts. A sample will be audited each year as part of the local authority audit process. Any maintained school that wants a separate audit has the right to commission one. We can argue about whether, as the noble Lord has suggested, auditing would save money. However, we are clear about how much it would cost. School audits can cost £10,000 or more—the total cost of separate audits for all maintained schools would be at least £100 million a year.

I hope that, given my explanations, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her clause stand part notice, and other noble Lords will not move their amendments.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I accept what the Minister says—that of course the proposal for new free schools has to be properly interrogated, et cetera— but it has now been nearly a year. She alluded to the fact that some of the issues may be around the tight funding. At the very least, could she commit to contacting the schools or groups that have put forward proposals, just to give them an update? In some sense, it is the not knowing and not hearing that is the most frustrating for them, so perhaps she could at least do that.

As the Minister well recognises, it is a huge amount of work to do this, and there will be local groups, schools and parents desperately wanting to know if these schools are going to open. Even if she cannot tell us today, if she could perhaps commit to some further information for those in the pipeline, that would be a welcome move forward from their perspective.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I recognise the point made by the noble Baroness and the need for trusts to have certainty about their projects as soon as possible. We will provide an update on next steps to trusts and local authorities in due course, and I am sure that others in the department have heard the reasonable points made by the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I am slightly surprised by the Minister’s response to this group. On the changes proposed by Clause 57, she repeated the point set out in the policy summary document about the importance of local authorities being able to meet their sufficiency duty, but she did not give us any examples or data to suggest that there had been instances where they were unable to meet their sufficiency duty because of a lack of suitable applications. Therefore, if I may, I will repeat my earlier request that the Minister write to me setting out exactly how often that has happened, maybe over the last five years, year by year, so we can get a picture of what this problem really is.

The Minister gave the House no reflection on the capacity of local authorities to deliver new free schools, no reflection on the conflicts of interest inherent in this policy and no real recognition of the contribution of free schools, which, as we heard particularly from my noble friend Lord Harris, have done really great and important work, particularly in narrowing disadvantage gaps. As my noble friend Lord Nash said in relation to the importance of the Latin Excellence programme, these schools have often been pioneers in raising the aspirations of children through the curriculum they offer. As we debated, and as I quoted in the debate last week on the curriculum, this is about opening doors for children—not moving the destination closer to them but building the bridge so they can get to that destination.

On my noble friend Lord Agnew’s Amendment 481, it is good that the Minister has the figure on the cost. I am sure my noble friend could negotiate that down given half a chance, but the real point is the one he made: that his trust has been able to unlock funding that gives three more hours a week to the children in that trust, or one year more of education. The Government’s accepting invisibility and probable financial inefficiency in local authority schools does the children in those schools a real disservice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, this debate has been very thought-provoking. I always want to listen to what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has to say; she always challenges my own thoughts.

We all know the saying, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never harm me”. But, of course, words can harm you—sometimes tremendously so. They can almost “destroy” a pupil’s resilience and well-being. I think about a little girl called Millie, who was eight years old and a very good footballer. Her grandad took her to play football every Saturday morning on the fields by Otterspool Prom. Because she was so good, the other girls became quite jealous of her, so they contrived among themselves never to pass the ball to Millie. Millie just could not understand that; she wanted to take part in the game, but together they bullied her by not passing her ball.

She went to the parent who organised and refereed the football; one of his girls was part of this little group saying, “Let’s not pass the ball to Millie”. He said to her, “Oh grow up. Go away. You’re a footballer, come on, you can take it”. She went home feeling completely “destroyed” and chose not to play football again. I tell that tale because we actually forget the bully in that situation; the bully needs help and support as much as the person who has been bullied. We often do not consider that in school policies on anti-bullying.

I just want to say to the Minister that when we briefly discussed bullying in another group of amendments, she mentioned that schools have behavioural policies. I was arguing that we should have separate anti-bullying policies, because—I think I am correct in saying this—not every school has to have them.

This amendment simply says that we should know where we are. I will perhaps criticise myself a bit—as did the noble Lord opposite. All these amendments are seeking more information, quite rightly, on racist incidents, bullying and so on. But who has to collect that information? The school. Who in the school has to collect it? The teacher. When we talk about workload pressures on teachers, let us be aware that, all the time, we are creating more workload pressures for them. Nevertheless, some of these things are important. Certainly, information on racist incidents should be collected; we should know exactly what is happening with that. We should also know about bullying incidents, so that we know how to react and where we should go next.

My noble friend Lord Addington made an important point, picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that while we might be good at collecting information, we are not good at sharing it—and it is a fat lot of good collecting the information if we do not share it with other people, particularly other agencies. I was going to share the details of why we want to do this, but the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, very eloquently spelled out the information that we were supplied by the Anti-Bullying Alliance. Those figures are quite shocking in respect of the number of children in our education system who are bullied.

Bullying comes with all types of events. I mentioned football but I could equally mention the sly little pinch every day from one child to another. I could mention a whole host of things. I think of my own friends, now are in their 60s and 70s, who were affected by bullying as young people and it formed part of how they behave and react to things. We need to address this issue, but we can do so only if we know how serious it is. So, despite more workload pressures for teachers, I hope the Minister might agree that this is an important route that we should follow.

I want to mention briefly, as time marches on, the amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. It is important: teachers and head teachers may not be aware of how many children have parents or a parent in prison. We had thought it was somewhere around 31,000 but, in fact, according to figures, the number of children with a parent in prison is nearly 193,000. That is something that we need to address. I do not want to go into all the details but I very much support the right reverend Prelate’s amendment as well.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a good, wide-ranging debate on this group, which concerns how schools deal with acts of violence against their staff, pupil behaviour management, and tackling bullying in schools, including incidents that are racist or faith-based.

Violence and bullying in schools are never acceptable. No teacher should feel unsafe or face violence or abuse in the workplace. The department will always support teachers to ensure that they can work in safe and calm classrooms.

All schools must have a behaviour policy to regulate the conduct of pupils, to help ensure that teachers and pupils are protected from disruption and, most importantly, that they have a safe school environment in which to work and learn. When misbehaviour occurs, schools can use sanctions as a measure to improve behaviour; in the most serious cases, exclusion may be necessary to ensure that all pupils are protected from disruption and can benefit from the opportunities provided by education. To provide some assurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, we believe that pupil referral units have an important role to play in this.

To reiterate the importance with which the Government view this, we have recently announced the launch of new RISE attendance and behaviour hubs, focusing on supporting senior leaders to develop safe, supportive school cultures with high expectations for attendance and behaviour. Their role will include using data to identify and address areas of concern. We have now appointed the first 21 lead schools in this programme.

Amendment 459, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would require schools to report acts of violence against staff to the police. I want to be completely clear that, as I have already said, all forms of violence against school staff should be taken seriously. It is never acceptable for anyone to be harassed, intimidated or attacked.

The primary duty to take reasonable care for the health and safety of all employees rests with the employer. The employer is responsible for doing what is reasonably practicable to ensure the health, safety and welfare at work of all employees and should take appropriate action where they are aware of any matters that could detract from that. Where violence is involved, schools should take immediate and appropriate action. Should the incident constitute a potential criminal offence, it would be for the school employer to consider involving the police, having followed the advice in WHEN TO CALL THE POLICE Guidance for Schools & Colleges from the National Police Chiefs’ Council, written in partnership with the department and the Home Office. Given those provisions and that guidance, we fear that this amendment would be likely to impose additional burdens on schools without necessarily strengthening protections for staff.

Amendment 464, in the name of my noble friend Lady Whitaker, would place a duty on local authorities to require schools to record and report racist incidents or faith-based bullying, and the action taken. I wholly support the views of noble Lords who have identified how reprehensible these incidents are and how important it is that action is taken within the school to identify and educate students about the significance of that element of bullying.

Under the Equality Act 2010, every school in England has an existing legal obligation to not discriminate unlawfully on the grounds of a protected characteristic. We have confidence in the seriousness with which head teachers take any incidents that breach this requirement, as these would. Further reporting requirements for schools would risk creating a new burden and risk unintended consequences, as some noble Lords have touched on, discouraging children and staff from disclosing to school leaders due to privacy concerns and increasing the threshold at which schools may identify and respond to incidents due to perceived risk of reputational damage. We want children to be as open as possible within the school environment so that head teachers and teachers can determine the appropriate action.

I will take Amendments 501 and 502E together as both aim to address the importance of tackling bullying in schools and recognise the profound impact it can have on children’s lives. Amendment 501, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, seeks to introduce a duty on the department to collect and publish national data related to pupils’ experiences of bullying in schools. The department already monitors young people’s perceptions of bullying through the annual National Behaviour Survey, and I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that that survey will continue. It enables us to develop our understanding of bullying prevalence and trends.

Amendment 502E, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, seeks to mandate the appointment of an anti-bullying lead in schools to develop an anti-bullying strategy. In my introduction to this group, I referred to the legal requirement for schools to have a behaviour policy. In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, the law is clear that a school’s policy should include measures to prevent bullying. Schools are held to account by Ofsted and the Independent Schools Inspectorate on that.

School leaders are, and should be, free to tailor their approach and this can include deploying a lead for anti-bullying. Mandating how schools meet their obligations to prevent bullying, particularly in terms of staffing, does not recognise the need for flexibility in schools to ensure that approaches can be tailored to meet the needs of different settings and cohorts of pupils. This in no way suggests that we do not take this issue seriously and that is why the Department for Education is launching a procurement for an expert- and evidence-led review into best practice on preventing and tackling bullying. The learning from that best practice review will inform the support to be given in the longer term by the new attendance and behaviour hubs that I have already mentioned. This approach has been informed by recent engagement with a range of stakeholders, including teachers, parents, academics, charities and young people, to understand more about the issues around bullying.

Amendment 502N relates to a very important topic and it is right that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, raises it. The department recognises that the misuse of seclusion in schools can have a significant and long-lasting effect on the pupils, staff members and parents involved, and we are committed to minimising its use in schools. Earlier this year, we held a 12-week public consultation on the draft Use of Reasonable Force and Other Restrictive Interventions in Schools guidance. We have listened to the views of the sector and taken the decision to pursue secondary legislation that mandates the recording and reporting of the use of seclusion in schools to parents. This important work is already under way. It is a significant and positive step forward for pupils and their families, and will support schools to have consistent, transparent policies on the use of reasonable force and restrictive interventions which aim to safeguard everybody within the school community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, a common theme of the debate this evening has been that noble Lords from across this House have recognised the pressures facing our special educational needs and disabilities system. It is a system that many families find frustrating to navigate, where too often the outcomes for children fall short of what they deserve, and where, as we have heard from noble Lords—I think including the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman—a considerable amount of money is being spent with insufficient evidence of effective outcomes. It is certainly a system which has lost the trust of parents. For all those reasons, I can assure the House that the Government remain absolutely committed to reforming the SEND system. Our ambition is clear. We want all children to receive the support they need to succeed in their education and to lead happy, healthy and productive lives.

The amendments in this group raise important questions about the support available to children and young people with SEND. First, Amendment 498, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, concerns a review of SEND provision in England. Although I thank the noble Lord for both his amendment and his obvious commitment and concern to improve the situation, we do not need another review at this point. I think we know, and in fact we have heard in this debate this evening, many of the failings of the SEND system, and there have been many reviews by the previous Government, by Parliament and by the National Audit Office. The Government inherited a system with significant failings, and we know that too many children and young people with SEND are not getting the support that they need. That is why we are determined to take action, and we are committed to bringing about a more inclusive education system.

This is a difficult and complex task. We are working with parents, teachers and experts that we have appointed. We are fortunate, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said, to have the leadership of practitioners such as Tom Rees in this job, and, of course, particularly to be able to listen to those with lived experience to make sure that we get it right.

I thank my noble friend Lady Thornton for her recognition of both the day of action and what that identified, and the attendance and the listening approach of my new ministerial colleague, Georgia Gould—absolutely at the beginning of her time in the role—who has been making sure that she is listening to the people who were most impacted as she takes forward the work that we are doing in this area. The details of our intended approach to SEND reform will be set out later this autumn.

Amendment 461, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, proposes the establishment of a national body for SEND. Once again, this is an important issue. As others have said, there is a range of ways in which we might want to bring national consistency into the approach being taken. The NICE idea is a nice idea. However, the important point being made there is the need to ensure evidence-based practice in what is proposed. I can assure noble Lords that that will be and is a very important element of the approach that the Government are considering. I do not believe another body would necessarily contribute to that at the moment. Our focus is on making the system less bureaucratic in getting support to children and young people who need it quickly and efficiently.

Amendments 502R and 502U were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, respectively. I appreciate them raising important issues around the quality and training of our staff, particularly mandatory training in SEND for school teaching staff and inclusive education standards for teachers. Inclusion lies at the heart of our work in the department, and our approach is vital in meeting the needs of children and young people with SEND.

All teachers are, to an extent, teachers of special educational needs and disabilities, and we need to approach their training in that spirit. In specific cases, teachers in special schools, for example, are already required to have qualified teacher status, unless they are working under an exemption. In compliance with the teachers’ standards, all teachers with QTS must be able to adapt their teaching to understand the needs of all pupils, including those with SEND. In October 2024, the Government also introduced the national professional qualification for SENCOs, a mandatory qualification supporting participants to develop the essential knowledge and skills needed to set the strategic direction on SEN policy.

From this month, initial teacher training will include significantly more content on supporting pupils with SEND and adaptive teaching. As others have said, all teachers need to know how to adapt their teaching for the range of students in their classes and to recognise special educational needs and disabilities in those classes. This is being delivered through the mandatory initial teacher training and early career framework. In addition, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has agreed to provide more training for teachers on SEND, the details of which are currently being worked through.

Amendment 491, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, concerns the establishment of a school mentorship scheme for children with SEND. The SEND code of practice is clear that all children and young people with SEND should be prepared for adulthood, and that schools and colleges should use a wide range of imaginative approaches, such as taster opportunities, work experience, mentoring, exploring entrepreneurial options, role models and inspiring speakers. In addition, schools and colleges are expected to provide careers guidance to all children and young people, including at least one meaningful interaction with employers per pupil per year.

We are also funding employer engagement activities, and we will consider the feedback and experiences of previous mentoring activity. This includes the mentoring pilot for apprentices with learning difficulties and disabilities, which was delivered in 2024 and explored what additional support young people with additional needs may require from mentors.

Amendment 502V, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, concerns transparency and the reporting of SEND funding in state-funded schools. As I said, one of the things we are clear about, aside from the question of additional transparency measures, is that the considerable amount of money currently being spent on the provision of SEND education is not delivering the outcomes for children that we would all want it to deliver. That was the clear message of the National Audit Office report. Nevertheless, I understand the point that the noble Baroness is making about how we can achieve more transparency in schools on how funding is allocated to SEND and delivered.

Ofsted’s inspection of schools of course covers how schools support pupils with SEND, but it is important that schools have autonomy over how they spend their core funding allocations, and we trust school leaders to make decisions that best serve their pupils. We would be concerned if asking schools to produce detailed annual reports of the kind proposed placed a burden on them. For example, asking teachers to work out precisely how much time they spent supporting children with SEND could result in increased paperwork and less time spent teaching. In this area, the call for transparency and clarity about the value for money and effectiveness and the outcomes that we are receiving from the money spent is very legitimate, but we need to be careful that we do not set up structures that actually increase burdens without increasing either real transparency or the ability to drive the most effective practice.

I turn to Amendments 502Q, 502S, 502T and 502W, all tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. They are aimed at preventing children and young people with SEND from unnecessarily entering the justice system. I thank him for raising this issue and for the important work that he has done on this. I noted his point about the Michael Seiff report. I shall certainly make sure, if it has not already happened, that it is brought to the attention of those people in the department working hard on this area.

In relation to Amendment 502Q, the Government recognise the importance of improving safeguarding and co-ordination regarding exclusions. However, the changes that the amendment would make to the statutory school exclusion review process may also cause unintended burdens, particularly on youth justice practitioners. In all cases, as we talked about in the earlier group, when thinking about exclusion, school leaders should consider early intervention to address misbehaviour before excluding. Any decision to exclude must also be lawful, reasonable and fair, including when there is police involvement or parallel criminal proceedings against a pupil.

Amendments 502S and 502T propose duties on schools to work with youth courts to provide assessments of SEND and support reintegration and rehabilitation for children post custody. We support the spirit of both amendments but believe that the existing statutory framework already provides mechanisms to deliver those outcomes. Local authorities have a statutory duty to establish a multi-agency youth offending team, with members from police, social services, probation, health and education. They are equipped to work with schools and other relevant partners to compile assessments and reports for youth courts, ensuring that children’s diverse needs are appropriately identified and responded to. In addition, youth offending teams also play a central role in supporting reintegration post custody. Their work is designed to provide continuity and consistency across services, and they are well placed to draw in education partners, including schools, where needed. Placing a direct duty on schools would therefore risk duplicating or confusing existing multi-agency working.

Amendment 502W proposes a cross-sector data management system. I welcome the intention to strengthen co-ordination across services and ensure that no child is left unseen or overlooked. However, we already have the means to understand the interplay between exclusions, social care involvement and special educational needs through nationally collected official statistics. These datasets provide a valuable foundation for joined-up working. On a unique reference number, I can reassure the Committee that this Bill already makes provision for a consistent identifier. We had important discussions about that earlier in this Committee. We have initiated a series of test and learn pilots to explore how best to expand its use across safeguarding and welfare datasets. These pilots will inform a careful and incremental approach to implementation.

The amendments in this group understandably identify the need for the considerable amount of work currently going on within the department—as I said at the beginning, alongside parents and other experts—in ensuring that we can improve our SEND system. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment, in the certainty that noble Lords’ contributions will be adding to this really important work and helping us to deliver the system that our children deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard, this group of amendments focuses on the important issue of the mental well-being of pupils and the roles that schools could play in that. This obviously needs to be seen in the context of an adolescent mental health service which is currently struggling to keep up with demand, and where waiting lists are all too often extremely long, particularly with the rise in reports of poor mental health since Covid.

However, schools already have extensive guidance from the department on how to support both pupils and staff with mental well-being, and there is a mental health hub of resources. The previous Government introduced and began the rollout of mental health leads in our schools, and my understanding is the current Government have continued with this. So I am really not convinced that more duties and standards and guidance, as proposed in Amendments 462, 500 and 479, are the answer, although I accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, regarding the range of qualifications one might want to have on a team.

We have also heard that we have some major red flags in relation to children’s mental health and well-being with the use of smartphones and social media and the extraordinary amount of time that children and young people typically spend on their screens. Once again, I urge the Government to address these root causes of isolation, loneliness and disconnection in our society, especially for young people, rather than introducing yet more guidance.

I am sympathetic to the spirit of Amendments 502B and 502Y in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Willis, respectively. Many schools are able to offer a forest school in primary, but this is something that school leaders need to decide on.

As the Minister mentioned, we introduced the National Education Nature Park when we were in office, with an emphasis on schools in areas with few or no green spaces, and I was pleased when I looked at the National Education Nature Park website last night that more than 3,000 schools have signed up to the scheme. That will give those children the opportunity not only to spend more time in nature but to gather a range of relevant skills, including data capture and analysis.

Amendment 472, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, would establish a national children’s well-being measurement programme. We heard the noble Lord make a powerful case for such an approach, although I note the concerns raised by my noble friend Lady Spielman and the suggestion that indirect measures might achieve some of the same ends. A lot of questions are put to pupils in the national behaviour survey regarding well-being, including about happiness, how worthwhile a pupil’s life feels, levels of anxiety, loneliness, bullying and more, and I think there is a case for looking at the range of data that is collected. If it does not meet some of the objectives that the noble Lord set out, perhaps we could dispense with some of the data collection and replace it with something more useful.

I was very struck when in office by the approach that is taken in Indonesia—the Committee cannot laugh at me at this hour—in relation to surveys of pupil well-being, which are completely built into its equivalent of an Ofsted framework. It is able to identify very quickly schools where pupils’ well-being is significantly better or worse than the average, which allows it to learn from the best and address the weaknesses of the poorest.

I am not going to speak to Amendment 496 unless someone tells me I should because I do not think that that amendment was introduced.

Finally, my noble friend Lady Berridge and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, reminded us of the tragic case of Benedict Blythe. Whether or not we are parents, we can all recognise the heartbreak of the death of a child, particularly where that death is avoidable. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, rightly pointed out the much wider and more prevalent issue of anxiety for parents of children at risk of an anaphylactic shock. I express my thanks to all the organisations in this area which have contributed to improving the response of schools to managing the safety of pupils with an allergy, particularly the Benedict Blythe Foundation for its work on the schools’ allergy code and the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation for its work on the allergy school. I hope that the Minister will be able to address the concerns raised in that amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, this Government are committed to improving mental health support for all children and young people to help pupils achieve and thrive in education. We also agree that all children and young people should have the opportunity to understand and connect with the natural world, and recognise the importance of supporting pupils with allergies.

On Amendment 462 on the dedicated mental health practitioner, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, this Government have announced that we will expand mental health support teams from 52% coverage of pupils and learners at the start of April 2025 to 100% by 2029-30. This will ensure that all schools have access to NHS-trained and -supported mental health practitioners. Additionally, funding of £13 million has been agreed to pilot enhancements to this service to support those with more serious needs; for instance, young people who have experienced trauma or those with neurodiversity or eating disorders. We will look at the experience of those pilots and how they could be extended.

The issue, as other noble Lords have identified, rests particularly in the numbers of mental health staff available to deal with the most acute needs of young people. This amendment would not add to the provision of mental health professionals, although the Government have committed to increase their number by 8,500, but switch responsibility from the NHS to schools. Schools provide a range of pastoral support, including counselling, but managing mental health professionals is not their job. Mental health support teams benefit from being recruited, trained, clinically supervised and having outcomes monitored by the NHS, and there is good evidence of their effectiveness.

Amendment 472, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, seeks to establish a national children’s well-being measurement programme. The Government are strongly committed to supporting all children and young people to achieve and thrive. To help us do this, we need to understand how our children and young people are feeling. There is immense value in schools measuring, understanding and taking action on the factors which influence whether their pupils attend, achieve and thrive. Around 60% of schools already conduct some type of well-being measurement voluntarily.

We agree with the noble Lord that measurement should remain voluntary for schools. However, we do not agree that a centrally administered survey, costing millions of pounds a year over this spending review, is necessarily the right way forward. We believe in measurement, but for schools to choose to measure, it is important that the tool they use is relevant to them and they can be assured that results will not be used for accountability in an overly simplistic way.

Therefore, we recognise the need for there to be consistency of that measurement. That is why the Government have already initiated a programme of work with similar aims, with measurement experts and providers, including from the Our Wellbeing, Our Voice campaign, and with the education sector. This will involve setting standardised questions for schools to ask pupils, including about their well-being, enabling benchmarking between schools.

We will go further and provide non-statutory guidance, including tools and resources, to support schools to measure in a more consistent and evidence-based way and, importantly, to act on the findings with partners to improve outcomes for children. We are confident that the adoption of a standard set of questions across the sector and publication of operational guidance will better enable schools to share data with one another and other local partners, to facilitate local benchmarking and joined-up community action.

I hear the noble Lord’s point about national collection, and in the longer term, we will also explore whether and how this data could be collected centrally to inform national policy. In the meantime, to further amplify the voices of young people, we have committed to publishing an annual data release containing collated national survey data on pupils’ experiences in school, including their sense of belonging, enjoyment and safety.

Amendment 479, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, would require statutory guidance for schools on whole-school approaches to mental health and well-being. The Government already provide guidance, supporting schools to put in place whole-school approaches. While itself not statutory, this supports a range of statutory duties in relation to teaching, safeguarding, behaviour and special educational needs and disabilities, which are key to identifying need, and working with external services to meet that need. These existing statutory duties, the support already available to schools and the work that we are committed to on the framework, measurement and annual data collection, which I have just set out in response to Amendment 472, taken together, will provide a sound basis for all schools to put in place whole-school approaches and secure the support that their pupils need. I will write to the noble Lord about the specific point relating to the training grant and the Government’s approach to providing additional support for schools to do this.

I turn to Amendment 500, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, which would require newly published standards for schools in England on physical and mental well-being; this point was referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Schools already have specific requirements to teach about physical and mental well-being, which are set out in the physical education national curriculum and the statutory guidance on relationships, sex and health education. Ofsted inspects the delivery of these requirements. This approach allows schools to develop their own approaches to supporting physical and mental well-being that reflect the very different circumstances of their pupils. Centrally set delivery targets could not reflect this difference.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, and other noble Lords who proposed the amendments in this group. This is a very technical area, and we have heard much expert opinion from my noble friend Lord Banner, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and, crucially in our opinion, the former Chief Inspector of Education my noble friend Lady Spielman, and my noble friend Lady Coffey.

It is important to flag that, although His Majesty’s loyal Opposition completely understand the spirit of noble Lords’ amendments, we are not in a position to support them. The UK has already signed and ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, in 1990 and 1991 respectively, and it came into force in January 1992. As such, the UK is already bound by international law to implement the agreement, and our progress is being monitored by the Committee on the Rights of the Child. But several of the recommendations in the last report from the committee, including on child rights assessments and education, are ones we did not support when we were in government and still do not support in opposition.

Amendment 469 would bring an additional child rights assessment into all legislation, as recommended by the committee in its 2023 report. We simply do not believe that this is required; in fact, instead of enhancing a child’s education, it would further slow our ability to legislate and implement effectively.

The wider recommendations in the report are also not proposals with which we concur, including, for example, the recommendation to end academic selection and testing measures to reduce levels of stress on pupils. This has the potential to do real harm, particularly to disadvantaged pupils.

We believe that the huge opportunity before us is not to layer on new statutory duties or reporting mechanisms. To the contrary, it is to ensure that the education system we strive for is one that builds on the successes of the past 20 years, aided by noble Lords on all Benches of your Lordships’ House. An education that offers each and every child the opportunity to realise their full potential—that should be the endgame.

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

My Lords, the amendments in group 1, as we have heard in a very good and well-informed debate, relate to duties on Ministers and public bodies in respect of children’s rights and parents’ rights to educate children in accordance with their faith. Let me be clear in responding to this group that the Government are committed to safeguarding children’s rights, both in law and in practice, and firmly uphold the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I am grateful to noble Lords for their views on these important matters and for the opportunity, as I say, to hear from experts in this Committee. We have listened carefully to the arguments for these amendments and will continue to engage closely with all those advocating for the rights of children. We regularly meet, for example, with an expert advisory group to hear directly from key stakeholders in this area, including the Children’s Rights Alliance for England, Coram, Barnardo’s and several others. This group will in fact be meeting again in the department next week. Additionally, we convene regular meetings with all the major children’s charities. These fora provide Ministers and officials with excellent and important opportunities to hear first-hand from the experts on these issues and to help us advance our shared goal of putting children’s rights at the very centre of policy-making.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

May I just ask the Minister: does she meet groups of children?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I have barely got started, but yes, most certainly we do, and I will come to a bit more detail on that in a moment. As we have discussed at various points during the course of the Bill’s passage, there are a whole range of ways in which the Government engage with children, both on the specifics of legislation but also more broadly. For example, a very wide-ranging engagement has been led by colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, along with DfE and the Department of Health, on the development of this Government’s youth strategy, and a very large number of children have been engaged.

I was just about to say that my honourable friend and former Minister, Janet Daby, engaged readily with these key stakeholders and asserted—as do I and as, I am sure, my new colleague Josh MacAlister does—the fundamental importance of children’s rights to this Government. In parallel, we are also carefully considering the issues and amendments on the rights and voice of the child that were raised on Part 1 earlier in Committee, to ensure that children’s rights are protected throughout the Bill.

Amendment 469, in the name of my noble friend Lady Lister and introduced by my noble friend Lady Blower, would place a duty on Ministers to prepare and publish a child rights impact assessment concerning all relevant legislative, policy and budget developments in the Act that will impact children’s well-being, social care or education, prior to the decision being taken. On children’s rights assessments and more broadly on the UNCRC, this Government have put children at the heart of our mission to break down barriers to opportunity through our plan for change. Ministers already consider the impact of our children’s rights responsibilities in all new policies and legislation, and of course through this landmark Bill we are delivering the most significant reforms—for example, to child protection—in a generation.

By improving safeguarding, strengthening social care and ensuring that vulnerable children do not fall through the cracks, we are already putting children and families first. For this Bill, we published children’s rights impact assessments for all measures, and we are working hard in the department to deliver what I think my noble friend Lady Longfield rightly emphasised: the need to improve both the status of children’s rights impact assessments and to develop the culture and win hearts and minds in order to ensure that that is delivered across government.

That is why we are continuing to work with policymakers across government to carry out CRIAs to analyse the impact of government decisions on children. It is a valuable tool, and the department has worked with civil society experts, for example, to develop a robust template, which was one of the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell. We will continue work with children’s rights experts to promote children’s rights across government and upskill officials on the importance of considering children’s rights in policy-making and how best to utilise the assessment tool.

--- Later in debate ---

I shall finish by proposing that one of the actions to guarantee greater participation by children in sport and physical activity would be the banning of smartphones in schools. The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, said just 30 minutes ago from that very Dispatch Box that the content of WhatsApp groups is greatly concerning. The Children’s Commissioner has said that many children are accessing harmful content through social media and chatrooms. A ground-breaking, large-scale randomised controlled study—the gold standard in social science—from the University of Pennsylvania now offers clear evidence that banning smartphones improves classroom results and, as a knock-on effect, improves extracurricular activity. The Government can no longer say they are waiting for the evidence. The evidence is there, and the Government should be acting right now for the benefit of all schoolchildren on this and on physical activity.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Well, I start by saying that I actually agree with the vast majority of the points made by noble Lords opposite, but I just have to say that we in this House are not disinterested observers of the activities of Governments. Several of the noble Lords opposite who rightly identified the decline in school sports, the reduction in teachers and the narrowing of the curriculum were supporters of or part of the Government who were responsible for it. I just want to put that on the record as we start this.

Having said that, there is good news. This Government are reviewing the curriculum and establishing a new national approach to PE and school sport. We value PE and sport as a great opportunity to improve not only the health but—

[Lord Addington (LD)]

I have one more question. If we are doing this for PE in schools, is there going to be a specific link to activity outside school? A lot of the sports education is done by sports governing bodies and grass-roots clubs. I hope the noble Baroness can give me some reassurance that that will be done.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I know that I added a little bit to the beginning of my speech, but I am actually only three lines through, and I will come to precisely that point.

The amendments proposed align closely with the important practical work already under way by this Government to expand access to high-quality PE and school sport for every child. We remain committed to ensuring that all young people, regardless of background, have the opportunity to thrive through physical education, school sport and physical activity. I also agree with the points ably made by the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Moynihan, about the broader benefits of sport, physical activity and physical education. The impact on academic achievement, mental health, healthy weight and sleep: those are all important elements of the broader benefits that come from children being active and being supported to move in a wide range of ways—something I thought about carefully as I finished the Worcester 10K on Sunday morning.

[A noble Lord]

Hear, hear.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Thank you. If you had seen how fast I did it—or how slowly—you might not have been quite so impressed.

Of course, it is not only organised sport that is important. As several noble Lords said, other ways of moving our bodies, including dancing, are also beneficial, although people who saw my performance on “Strictly” would not necessarily recognise any benefit that I gained from it—or that anybody watching it gained. However, the point is that physical activity, the opportunity to move in a whole variety of ways and the requirement to make that as inclusive as possible are really important and at the heart of what the Government are trying to do.

In June, the Prime Minister announced a new national approach to PE and school sport. This new approach will establish a PE and school sport partnership network, designed to build stronger links between schools, local clubs and national governing bodies—to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Its aim is to identify and remove barriers to participation in PE and school sport, particularly for less active children, including girls and pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. The point made by several noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, about the need for this to be inclusive is very important. That is why we have recently announced a one-year grant of up to £300,000 to a consortium led by the Youth Sport Trust to deliver Inclusion 2028, a programme which upskills teachers to deliver high-quality, inclusive PE, school sport and physical activity to pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. This will be an important theme of the national approach as well.

Since the announcement on the school sport partnership network was made, the Department for Education, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Health and Social Care—here I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that, given the broader consequences, this needs to be a cross-government responsibility—have been working with the sector to co-design the partnerships, meeting with a range of organisations, including educational organisations and national governing bodies of sport, to discuss the key principles they would like to see in a new model.

Furthermore, the Department for Education is conducting market engagement events from 24 September to explore the procurement of a national delivery partner to design, implement and manage this new network from summer 2026. Procuring a national delivery partner reflects a significant investment in this approach. The market-testing phase will help shape the scope and scale of delivery, ensuring that any funding allocated is aligned with the ambition and impact we expect from a national partner. The intention is for the national partner leading the PE and school support partnerships network to distribute a significant budget each year to pay for targeted provision in local areas. The total funding for this will be confirmed as part of the department’s business planning.

In addition, we are working with experts to develop a new enrichment framework by the end of the year, highlighting best practice and considering how standardised benchmarks and tools can support schools. This will provide advice for schools on how to plan a high-quality strategic enrichment offer and how to make use of specific programmes to increase access to sport and arts.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

I make just two points that I am sure that the Minister will recognise. Many in the Committee this afternoon have been campaigning exceptionally hard for improved opportunities for young people in sport and recreation, irrespective of who has been in government. One of the great aspects of this House has been frequent cross-party support for making sure that we try to improve the provision of sport and recreation. I do not think it is a party-political point. I remember that, soon after the turn of the century, possibly the most important influence on Tony Blair’s decision to move forward with the bid for the Games was a debate in this Chamber which had completely cross-party support. One needs to be a little bit cautious before saying, “Why didn’t we speak out before?” Many of us have been speaking out like this for decades.

My second point is that I acknowledge—and I am grateful to the Minister for raising the fact—that the Prime Minister has indeed come forward with a whole range of initiatives on access to high-quality PE and sport for children, equal access, two hours of sport a week and a national network to build strong partnerships with clubs. We are just putting into an amendment what the Prime Minister himself said in June, to make sure that it is actually done. It has not been done by successive Prime Ministers—I must admit, of both political persuasions—but not least by Gordon Brown. There were fine words, but it was never put into practice. Will the Minister be the first to support me in coming back at Third Reading with everything that the Prime Minister said when he met the Lionesses, as clear mandates, so that we can enshrine it in legislation and make sure it happens for the young people of this country?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

In the previous paragraphs, I outlined not only what the Prime Minister had identified but the action the Government are already taking to deliver on the objective that the Prime Minister set down, so I do not think it is necessary to enshrine that in the Bill, because, as I identified, it is already happening. I am not going to rise to the noble Lord’s point about—I shall not even say that I am not going to rise to it, otherwise I will do so.

On the noble Lord’s point about staffing, it is encouraging that PE initial teacher training places are all taken up this year. Obviously, that is important in ensuring that there is a pipeline of good teachers in this area, but there is more to do on quality, especially in primary schools. The PE and school sport partnerships will bring together the support available to schools and therefore to teachers. By making sure that PE has a central place in the curriculum, in the light of our curriculum and assessment review, we can cement its place in schools’ priorities. That will of course mean a greater focus from both leaders in schools and staff.

As I was saying, the development of the PE and school sport partnerships and enrichment framework relates to Amendment 502H in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. The Government are already delivering the co-ordinated action for which the noble Lord rightly calls, both through the PE and school sport partnerships and the enrichment framework. This has established a strategic framework, guided by evidence and collaborating with national governing bodies of sport and other key organisations, to raise the quality and standards of PE and school sport for all pupils across the country.

Amendment 492, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and Amendment 502J, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, call for a curriculum review to investigate how PE, sport and physical activity provision in schools can deliver relevant outcomes for pupils. The partnerships to which I have already alluded will seek to support schools in providing opportunities in and out of the curriculum for children to work towards meeting the Chief Medical Officer’s recommendation of being active for an average of 60 minutes a day.

Of course, we already have under way a curriculum review of the type called for by noble Lords and by the noble Baroness, Lady Sater. In 2024, this Government launched an independent curriculum and assessment review, which is looking at all national curriculum subjects including physical education. It seeks to deliver a curriculum which is rich and broad, inclusive and innovative. The review is considering subject-specific issues including physical education. Subject and sport stakeholders have had the chance to feed into the review on PE and have highlighted many of the issues that noble Lords highlighted in this debate. The interim report was published in March 2025 and highlighted the reduction in PE time, especially at key stage 4. The final report will be published in the autumn with the Government’s response, and I am sure that noble Lords will allow that independent curriculum review to present its recommendations.

I hope that noble Lords are reassured that we have considered all the issues raised in the debate today. The ongoing independent curriculum and assessment review, the PE and school sport partnerships, and the enrichment framework are already starting work to tackle the issues raised. In the light of this, I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

The noble Baroness rightly referred to the curriculum review that Becky Francis is undertaking, to be published at some stage. What approach are the Minister and the department taking to ensure that all the excellent work that Becky Francis is taking forward will be reflected in the Bill and that there are no inconsistencies or gaps in this legislation as a result of the timing difference between the Bill’s passage and the publication of the review?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I was referencing the amendments calling for a curriculum review and pointing out that there already was a curriculum review. Many of the points raised in the amendments, particularly the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, were about the approach to the curriculum; for example, ensuring that, at a primary level, we are developing the physical skills of children and promoting physical activity, and then, at secondary level, continuing that important work while also delivering a focus on competition and particular types of sports. Becky Francis’s review is independent, but from both the interim report and the evidence that has been provided and is under consideration, I know that is the type of approach being taken in the curriculum and assessment review.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this excellent debate.

I am not normally tempted to dive into the subject of swimming, but the noble Lord, Lord Storey, has tempted me to do so. It is always worth reminding ourselves—particularly, as he said, in an island nation—that swimming is the only sport that can save your life. That underscores the critical significance of physical activity, literacy, fluency and education in the example of learning to become a competent swimmer.

This Government, like any Government, want growth, and they face a very clear choice with these amendments. One of the key elements of growth is investment. There could barely be a better area to invest in than physical activity and physical well-being. The choice for any Government is to invest and reap all the social, economic and psychological benefits on the individual, community and country levels or to pay for the consequences through the NHS, the prison service and many other areas administered by government. These issues will certainly return on Report, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

How our children are assessed inevitably drives the method of teaching throughout the school system. Parentkind’s national parent survey revealed this week that already 31% of primary school children are expected to have a personal device for schoolwork. If one accepts that digital delivery of education is, for a majority of people, an inferior teaching method producing inferior educational outcomes, it remains acutely important that the major assessments, including the baseline assessment, do not move online. I see these amendments most definitely as seat belts, not red flags.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We have had a good debate on this group, which concerns education technology and device-based assessment. I thank noble Lords for raising the important issues of digital and technology standards for schools, particularly around inclusion, procurement and use of effective education technology in schools. I strongly agree with noble Lords that technology must be safe for children to use and effective to support learning, teaching and the work of teachers—who remain central and fundamental to children’s learning. I am sure that there are important lessons and developments about pedagogy that it is crucial to engage with, given the context of edtech.

Amendment 493 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and Amendments 502K, 502YI and 502YH, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, seek to regulate educational technology deployed in schools in England. We share many of the objectives set out by noble Lords to ensure quality and safety. This is a very fast-moving area and we are in the process of developing standards and ways to ensure the accountability and the certainty that those standards are being delivered. The Department for Education has set non-statutory digital and technology standards for schools. These help schools and colleges make more informed decisions about technology, supporting safer, more cost-efficient practices and new learning opportunities for students. Earlier this year, the department consulted on the future of these standards and in July published a government response to the consultation confirming our ambition for all schools to meet the standards by 2030.

The proposals set out in our response to the consultation explore accountability options for technology standards, considering appropriate accountability levels and reviewing standards where they may be cost prohibitive. More broadly, we recognise the importance of supporting schools to choose effective technology that is safe for pupils to use and meets educational need. This is why we set out in the response that we will continue to support schools and colleges with technology standards with a support service to plan their technology.

I recognise the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that, while it is important to develop a series of standards in this area and to revise them, that does not make life easy for schools. The intention behind the support service to plan their technology is that it will act as a self-assessment guide, so that schools can be much clearer about what they need to do and how to meet the standards. This will be supported by a multi-million pound investment in schools’ digital and connectivity infrastructure.

I have a specific point on Amendment 493. We think this would create significant legal and operational barriers for schools in England, as it is more restrictive than the current data protection framework, including the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. We think that requiring schools to hold all data on site would be a retrograde step that would not support greater security, which I think is the intention. It would have significant financial and environmental impacts for schools.

Amendment 494, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, seeks to create a new procurement standard for education technology for schools in England. This is a significant development aimed at ensuring that schools adopt consistent, secure and value-driven approaches when procuring digital tools and services. Our digital and technology standards already include specific requirements which ensure compliance with safeguarding obligations. We also support schools to choose effective technology that meets their needs and safeguarding obligations, through the service plan technology for schools, which I have just spoken about.

Amendment 502YH, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, seeks to establish a duty on the Secretary of State to set out the minimum standards for filtering and monitoring technologies and certification by an accredited scheme sanctioned by the Department for Education. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her previous engagement with me on this topic. I know that my officials are keen to continue their regular conversations with the noble Baroness and to continue working closely with her on this agenda in order to make progress.

The statutory guidance, Keeping Children Safe in Education, makes it clear that schools and colleges should ensure that appropriate filtering and monitoring systems are in place and that their effectiveness is regularly reviewed. In addition, the department’s digital and technology standards include a filtering and monitoring standard with technical requirements that filtering and monitoring systems should meet, which is to support schools to meet the statutory duties expected of them in keeping children safe in education.

Technology is moving fast, and ensuring that systems keep pace is a challenge that we recognise. In January, we published our Generative AI: Product Safety Expectations framework, which states that generative AI products must effectively and reliably prevent access to harmful and inappropriate content by users and maintain robust activity-logging procedures.

However, I share the noble Baroness’s concerns and those of other noble Lords. We know that a minority of providers do not meet the department’s standards, and we are actively working on options to increase provider compliance and reduce the burden on schools themselves to identify systems that meet the standards. There are several ways that we might achieve this, such as by establishing a certification scheme for filtering and monitoring products under the UK Accreditation Service framework. We will take the time to do a full assessment of the impacts and benefits of any new requirements to avoid the risk of creating burdens on the sector and limiting supplier diversity.

We must also make sure that we are supporting schools to meet the standards. We consulted schools in March to understand the challenges they face in meeting the filtering and monitoring standards, and while 98% of respondents stated that they were fully or partially meeting the standards, we continue to work through identified barriers to understand priorities for further support.

I recognise the point made by the noble Baroness about the depth of knowledge necessary to make that assertion and the shift of requirement from schools being expected to make that judgment through to a much clearer certification scheme, putting the emphasis on the certification of the product, as opposed to the requirement for schools to ensure that they are meeting the standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I just want to raise the question of timing. The Government, as the Minister says, are putting a huge amount of money into digital infrastructure and, as later amendments that she will turn to say, putting assessment online and so on. I am trying to understand why it takes decades to get the rules in place, and why we have not yet learned that we need to put them in place as we put the infra- structure in.

I will read the debate very carefully, and I respect the generous way in which the Minister answered, but I sit here as someone who has been fighting for nearly a decade for something that is still being promised some time before 2030. I am finding it very difficult to put that together with the idea that we are now making a huge investment in edtech, that this is going to be central to children’s lives and that the Government will be responsible for the outcomes. Many noble Lords across the House have said that we want edtech and learning, and to be part of this movement, but look at what is happening around the edges. It is being treated like a commercial market, not a pedagogical outcome, a safety outcome or, indeed, an inclusive one, as the noble Lord was referring to.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I hope that the noble Baroness will carefully read what I said. I was certainly not saying that. In my response, I have gone further in explaining the work that the department is doing to meet many of the concerns that she outlined than we have done previously. I am most certainly not saying that it will be done to the 2030 timetable. I understand her concern around regulation and accountability, and I have given some considerable steers, at the very least, about the direction in which that work is going—it is not to a 2030 timetable. Turning to—

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

Before the Minister moves on, I have a follow-up question. It is very encouraging to hear the work that seems to be ongoing in the ICO. What is the Minister’s view on why it would not be appropriate to put the requirement for a code of conduct on the statute book for education in the same way that it is in the Age Appropriate Design code for all other children’s data? Just to be clear, I value the fact that the Minister has been so open about the ongoing work, but those of us who have worked in this space for so long worry that things can change and that, without legal underpinning, codes can then disappear.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I understand that concern. Perhaps we can first make progress on the code, as I have outlined we are. I will write to the noble Baroness about this. I understand that this place is about putting things into legislation, but that does not mean that activity is not happening. The proof of the pudding may well be in the production of the code.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

When the Minister sends that letter, will she kindly clarify both the data protection and the child safety angles that she talked about, for which the Information Commissioner’s Office would have responsibility? Will she also explain how the pedagogical elements will be included, to make sure that these are both safe and effective from a learning point of view?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, I will do that.

Amendment 502YS, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to confer a right for parents to elect for their child to receive, complete and submit homework tasks otherwise than by means of a computer or a personal electronic device. The noble Baroness made important points about the totality of the way in which children might be expected to do their homework and the challenges for those children who might not have access to technology to do that.

I would be surprised if there were schools that were expecting children to do all their homework using devices. Nevertheless, it is still important to maintain the principle—rightly set down by the previous Government, particularly by Damian Hinds as Secretary of State—that decisions over the volume and form of homework are made by schools themselves, working in collaboration with staff, pupils, parents and governors. I am not sure that it would be appropriate for the department to limit the autonomy of schools to set their own policies on homework. But it is right that schools should consider providing alternative options for pupils to complete homework where device access is limited. They should consider the implications for handwriting and for the other ways of learning and completing work, which the noble Baroness was right to identify.

We understand the concerns around the potential harms of unmonitored and unlimited personal screen use, but it is helpful in this debate to consider the distinction between personal and educational screen time—they should not necessarily be conflated. It is a question not of screen use per se but of what children and young people are using the screens for and what activities that supports and—importantly, I agree—replaces.

Effective use of technology can improve education access and outcomes and reduce staff workload. We trust teachers and leaders to use these tools appropriately, which includes their use to complete homework. Beyond that, as we have discussed previously, it is also important to recognise that assistive technology can go a long way to supporting children with particular needs—a point frequently and rightly made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington.

I turn now to Amendments 502YT and 502YU tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Amendment 502YT seeks to ensure that secondary education exams are completed by hand rather than with a digital device, subject to specific exceptions. We are currently working closely with Ofqual to review evidence and develop policy on any potential future use of on-screen exams. There are already a small number of exams that are offered digitally—for example, A-level music technology; British Sign Language GCSE, which would be impossible to do unless it was done digitally; and some functional skills exams, which by nature of the point at which they are taken need to be done digitally—but Ofqual’s chief regulator has said publicly that any further introduction of on-screen exams should be treated with “extreme caution” and must be fair, proportionate and manageable. We agree with that.

However, it would not be appropriate to fix a policy position into legislation before the opportunities, risks and implications of on-screen exams have been fully considered in detail. Ofqual is responsible for regulating qualifications and examinations, and we expect that any changes to Ofqual’s regulatory framework would be subject to full public consultation in due course.

Amendment 502YU seeks to ensure that the reception baseline assessment is not administered using digital devices, subject to specific exceptions. It might be helpful for me to explain to noble Lords how this assessment works in reality. I think there is a general consensus that it is important for us to be able to assess the development of children at the beginning of their time in school. That is the point of the reception baseline assessment.

It is carried out with pupils individually. It takes between 15 and 20 minutes. Roughly half of it is carried out with a teacher sitting next to a single pupil, using the screen in a way that paper would not allow them to do—for example, to point at things and move them into different orders. The overall assessment retains the use of verbal responses. It retains the use of toys for questions in the other half of the assessment, which does not use a screen.

It brings benefits, including reduced workload for teachers and better support for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities using, for example, the assessment’s built-in accessibility settings. In relation to one of the points made by the noble Baroness, there is no expectation that a pupil has experience of screen use. The teacher can input the answers for the pupil if need be, because it is, in essence, a person-to-person assessment being carried out.

The new version, which was introduced in September 2025, had been trialled extensively with pupils and schools since 2018 and has been well received. A paper- based version continues to be available in circumstances where that is more suitable for the child. I hope that provides some reassurance to noble Lords. As the noble Lord said, I have responded to questions about this on more than one occasion. If we were to withdraw at this point something that has been trialled over a considerable period, with the trial having started under the previous Government, it would be difficult if not unfeasible to deliver a replacement in time to carry out this really important baseline assessment.

For all those reasons, I hope that I have provided some reassurance about the nature and development of this assessment. There are much broader conversations that it is obviously appropriate for us to have about the use of screens in early years settings and in schools, some of which we have had in earlier amendments and which I am sure we will continue to have, but I genuinely believe that, for this particular usage, removing it would be disproportionate, even given the concerns that noble Lords have expressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

Just before the Minister replies, I shall very briefly say that the principle of reviewing legislation is one that I think we have all agreed to and no Government have ever found terribly convenient. I hope that we can get something going and some commitment by the Government that they will look at what happens here, or some structure for reviewing what happens, because the unforeseen is something which no degree of planning now can ever adjust.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The amendments in this group cover a wide range of issues, including review of the Act, disapplication and commencement.

I will begin with Amendment 502YR tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, which seeks to protect a parent’s right to determine their child’s education in the event of a national emergency or an authoritarian Government, by placing judicial oversight above executive restrictions. This amendment would actually be ineffective as, quite rightly, Parliament is sovereign. Any law passed by a current Parliament can be changed or repealed by a future Parliament. Provided the education a child receives is both safe and suitable, existing legislation makes clear that most parents have the right to determine the form of education that best meets their child’s needs. We have of course discussed this at length in Committee and the Bill does not change it.

Turning to Amendment 502C, on reviewing the Act, I start by commending the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, to post-legislative scrutiny, which, as he identified, has been government policy since 2008 and part of the process for legislative progress through this House. I remember the discussions around putting it into that position in my last period of time in Parliament. I supported it then; I still support it now. In the interim period between 2010 and 2024, among the range of things that I was able to do, I was very pleased to be able to advise foreign Parliaments about the significance of post-legislative scrutiny, drawing on precisely the work of the noble Lord and the experiences of this Parliament in putting those into operation.

Alongside that amendment, we have Amendment 502YN, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, which concerns a review of the operation of the Bill’s measures. This Government agree on the importance of having an appropriate mechanism for the proper evaluation of the impact of legislation, ensuring that it meets the goals that it sets out to deliver, especially given the size and wide-ranging ambitions of this Bill in particular. I assure noble Lords that the Bill will be subject to post-legislative scrutiny in the usual way without this amendment. We fully expect that this evaluation will be carried out within the first five years of the legislation coming into force.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wei (Con)]

I thank the Minister. On my understanding, having spoken to those who know about the workings of the Regulatory Policy Committee, which the Minister said greenlit the Bill, in the last few years it has not been allowed to ask for submissions, on receiving a draft Bill, to scrutinise whether that Bill fits within the kind of good regulatory framework that we all would like to see. So the information that it had to greenlight this Bill was very limited indeed. If you cannot ask people what they think of the Bill, obviously any information you have is very limited and you can only go on what you have been given, which is further ammunition for the point that the Bill needs a lot of scrutiny, because it did not really have any before it was brought before this House.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The Regulatory Policy Committee had the benefit of our published regulatory impact assessment to review. Wider comments about the efficacy of the Regulatory Policy Committee are for the noble Lord to make to the Regulatory Policy Committee, rather than using it as a stick to beat this particular Bill. Frankly, as we are coming to the end—nearly—of day 12 of Committee on this Bill, the idea that it has not had sufficient scrutiny is laughable, given the time and care that was also spent in the other place, which has been massively exceeded by the time and care that has been spent by noble Lords in this House during the course of this Committee.

[Lord Wei (Con)]

Just to clarify, the words I used were, “before it was brought before this House”. The reason it has had so many days of scrutiny is because it was not drafted in a way that was appropriate. We have spent so much time on it. We cannot believe how many nights and days we have all had to work on this. If we could have Bills in future that had a bit more effort put into their drafting by policymakers and others, we could use the time of this House really well. I am not in any way criticising or saying that the work of this House is wasted. In fact, it has been very necessary to get us to where we are today.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that noble Lords have spent considerable hours on this—some more than others, I think it is fair to say.

Amendment 505C, tabled by my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie, seeks assurances, via a published statement, on how the Human Rights Act 1998 applies to private providers of publicly funded children’s social care services. The amendment seeks a pause in the commencement of Clauses 12 to 18 of the Bill until such a statement is made. These clauses cover measures relating to provider and financial oversight, profit caps, Ofsted and Secretary of State powers to impose monetary penalties, and information sharing between Ofsted and the Secretary of State.

I thank my noble friend for bringing important human rights considerations to our attention. Protecting the human rights of all children is of paramount importance, and the Bill is delivering a number of important measures to stop vulnerable children falling through cracks in services. I completely understand the reasoning behind my noble friend’s amendment and would like to provide the Committee with reassurances on the robustness and broad applicability of the human rights legal framework, including for children’s social care services.

Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 makes it unlawful for public authorities to act incompatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights, and this duty extends to private providers when they are performing functions of a public nature. There is no statutory definition of “functions of a public nature”, but relevant factors considered by the courts include the extent to which the body, in carrying out the relevant function, is publicly funded, exercising statutory powers, taking the place of central government or local authorities, or providing a public service. This broad-scope approach is intentional to ensure that a wide range of services can be captured, as appropriate.

Any statement that the Government make, as proposed by my noble friend, would not be legally binding. Whether a provider is carrying out functions of a public nature and is therefore in scope of the Human Rights Act is for the courts to determine, based on the facts in each specific case. However, to be clear, the Government’s position is that, were a court required to decide whether the private provision of core children’s social care services—services that local authorities are legally required to provide—falls in scope of the Human Rights Act 1998, we believe that the court would conclude that they were indeed performing a function of a public nature and would therefore be in scope.

My noble friend has identified the distinction between the approach taken here and that taken in the Mental Health Bill. As he said, the DHSC is making it explicit in that Bill that certain mental health services are deemed to be exercising a public function for the purposes of the Human Rights Act, but those amendments are being made following case law that identified a gap in the application of the HRA to the private provision of the services in question—some of which my noble friend referenced, I think.

No such gap has been identified through case law in relation to private provision of children’s social care services. Therefore, our view is that no clarification of the law is necessary for these services and, as I have emphasised, we continue to be of the view that the private provision of core children’s social care services would be considered to be within scope of the Human Rights Act. I suspect that, in pushing me, my noble friend might say, “Why don’t we take a belt-and-braces approach here, anyway?” The issue is that attempting to provide further specificity around certain services risks other services being unintentionally excluded by virtue of their omission. This is the way, as I understand it, that lawyers tend to work.

I emphasise again that we are content that the Human Rights Act as drafted is flexible enough to capture those functions that need to be within scope of the Human Rights Act 1998. We believe that would be upheld in any case with respect to children’s social care services. It is also important to remember that children’s social care is a highly regulated sector, subject to inspection and accountability processes aimed at keeping children safe and promoting their best interests. The local authority arranging or funding the relevant service would also always be within scope of the Human Rights Act in the exercise of its functions as a core public authority.

On this basis, I hope my noble friend might be reassured. We do not consider it necessary or appropriate to delay the commencement of other important Bill measures that are designed to ensure children in relevant settings are protected. We are confident in the existing legal framework and hope that we have provided the necessary reassurances and statements here today to reassure him. I hope, given my responses, that noble Lords would feel able to not press their amendments.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that very full response to Amendment 505C. I am not a lawyer, so I cannot say at this stage whether I accept the reassurance. I would like the opportunity to discuss it with her before Report, perhaps with some legal support on those points. She and her team have clearly gone into it deeply, and I appreciate that.

In closing, my noble friend talked about the extent to which this Bill has been subjected to scrutiny in Committee. I have been here 22 years now, and do not remember any Bill having had 12 days in Committee. I checked and we started this Committee on 20 May, fully four months ago, so I do not think anybody can say it has not had proper scrutiny. I would just like to draw an analogy. My noble friend mentioned earlier that she ran a 10K at the weekend, I imagine that must have felt like a walk in the park compared to steering this Bill through. I thank her and her other ministerial colleagues and Whips for the way in which they have approached it.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am more than happy to meet my noble friend and to bring those legal minds with me that I hope will enable him to be reassured. Given that this is the last group that I will be responding to today, I also thank him for what he has said about this Committee stage. It has been lengthy, but usually carried out in a respectful, amicable and constructive way. For that, I particularly thank the opposition Front Benches and, obviously, my excellent Whip and co-responder my noble friend Lady Blake. I agree with my noble friend that I do not think anybody could say that we have not done our jobs as legislators in this place in well and truly giving this a good going over, and I thank all those who have been involved in that.

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, given that, as the Minister said, she is just bringing to a conclusion her 12 days in Committee on the Bill, I was rather hoping that she may be a little demob happy and put aside her brief and accept the amendment.

I naturally welcome the commitment that the Bill will be reviewed within five years. For the reasons I developed, I believe that putting the commitment in the Bill is the preferable option. As I trust was clear from what I said, I do not believe putting such a provision in the Bill should apply to all or even most Bills, but only those that meet the criteria I detailed. Providing for such a scrutiny imposes a valuable discipline in drafting the measure, stimulating Ministers to think about the criteria by which one would know whether an Act had actually achieved what it was intended to achieve. That is not always clear. It would also demonstrate the Government’s confidence in the Bill to achieve its purpose.

The arguments for doing this, as I said, are the same as those accepted by the Government on the Football Governance Act. This is an important issue, not least for the health of the statute book. We rather miss the significance of such provisions, along with commencement orders, by sticking them at the end of Bills. I think we need to look at that again, but that is a matter I will pursue on another day. Given the importance of ensuring good law, I may return to the issue on Report, but for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

503: Clause 65, page 123, line 33, at end insert—
“(b) section (Employment of children in Scotland) extends to Scotland only.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the clause inserted after clause 26 (by my amendment) to extend to Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

506: Clause 66, page 124, line 19, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) Subject to subsection (1), the following come into force, in relation to Wales, on such day as the Welsh Ministers may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint—(a) section (Employment of children in England and Wales);(b) sections 30 to 35 and Schedule 2.(3A) Subject to subsection (1), section (Employment of children in Scotland) comes into force on such day as the Scottish Ministers may by regulations appoint.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for certain provision for Wales or Scotland to be brought into force by (respectively) the Welsh Ministers or Scottish Ministers.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

507: Clause 66, page 124, line 22, leave out “(3)” and insert “(3A)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 66 inserting new subsection (3A).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

510: Clause 66, page 124, line 24, after “(3)” insert “, (3A)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 66 inserting new subsection (3A).

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 14th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Barran. We have heard from a number of Members of the House about the changes that this part of the Bill is making. A fundamental rebalancing of responsibilities in social care is being carried through in the pilots. It is putting much more on to the shoulders of less-qualified staff. The reforms are intended to streamline the system and manage rising costs but, as my noble friend has pointed out, there are many concerns from experts such as Professor Eileen Munro and from many practitioners about the implications of inexperienced staff finding themselves doing child protection work, which, paradoxically, could lead to more Section 47 investigations, not fewer, which was one of the aims of the reforms.

Taking one step back, the hypothesis behind the reforms was the idea that the social care system had become weighted too much towards individual children in isolation rather than children in the family context, and that more of the support available should be diverted to families rather than given to individual children. However, little account was taken of the profile of the children most likely to be in the care of a local authority. They include children with severe disabilities and special needs, often children who are most likely unavoidably to live in social care as adults. They are children whose parents simply do not have the capacity to manage at home, even with extensive support. Indeed, the strain of trying to manage a child’s needs has sometimes fractured parental and other family relationships. More family support and more kinship care is often simply not a solution.

Then we have to acknowledge that there are some children who simply do not have a decent parent nor any other decent adult in their family and realistically never will have. It is horrible, but true, that there are children who simply do not have a family member able and willing to give them the care, attention and love that they need. We have somehow to recognise and face this.

A substantial minority of looked-after children are unaccompanied migrant children, typically boys in their late teens. These children are not here because they have a dysfunctional family network that needs support and intervention by our social workers. They need help, but other kinds of help. There are, of course, risks to these children, and there are also risks to others from some of them.

Together, these kinds of children account for a substantial proportion of the social care caseload, yet the reforms that are being pushed through do not acknowledge their particular needs. For all these reasons, considering all these kinds of children, Amendment 17 in particular, which would defer carrying through the full reforms until the full findings from the pilots and pathfinders are published, discussed and understood, and any necessary changes reflected, is important. It would be unsafe to proceed.

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

My Lords, creating new multi-agency child protection teams through Clause 3 is not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, suggested, about saving money; it is about bringing together social workers, police, health and education colleagues with experience in child protection to take swift and effective action that protects children from harm at the earliest opportunity. I hope that I will be able to respond to the points raised in this short debate, as we did at length in Committee and have continued to do since then through engagement, which noble Lords have acknowledged, including, in my case, directly with directors of children’s services.

Government Amendments 12 and 14 broaden the range of police staff who can work in these teams to include police officers and other police staff experienced in child protection. The need for this amendment arose as we talked more closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing to make sure that we were providing the scope for the correct representatives from policing to be on these teams. We are confident that this will improve front-line operational capacity through the right people with the right skills working in the team. Regulations will be clear that individuals must have appropriate levels of experience, seniority, qualification and expertise. I will come back a little later in my remarks to how we will ensure that those appropriate levels are delivered.

Noble Lords have heard me speak before in Committee—in fact, at some length—about the Families First Partnership programme, where we are investing £2.4 billion over the next three years to change the way that we help, support and protect children. One element of that—introducing new multi-agency child protection teams—brings a sharp focus to better multi-agency working, information sharing and decision-making. I therefore welcome the opportunity to address amendments relating to these new teams, to clarify what we are learning through the national rollout and how this will inform the future legislative framework on day-to-day operations.

I turn first to Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on the important matter of child protection for very young children in legal proceedings. Of course, as the noble Baroness identified, these are children who are widely represented in the system and for whom we need special care. However, Amendment 6 would require specific senior sign-off for the decision to end a child protection plan when proceedings have been initiated or care or supervision orders are issued for children under five. As I have outlined before, these plans should end only through a child protection conference, when multi-agency practitioners are confident that a child is no longer suffering or likely to suffer significant harm, and not automatically when proceedings are initiated.

I know the noble Baroness is concerned that children in these circumstances may fall between teams or services deciding whether staying at home will keep them safe from harm. I want to reassure her, and other noble Lords, that I am confident that reforming the system of family help, with new multi-agency child protection teams wrapped around, is about exactly this: making sure the whole system holds the safety and well-being of children as the number one priority.

I will now speak to Amendments 11, 13, 15 and 16, also tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. These amendments focus on the operation and delivery of the new multi-agency child protection teams. Amendment 13 seeks to ensure that the new teams would operate within the existing statutory framework, Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023, and that these teams have sufficient access to health safeguarding expertise, specifically in relation to the NHS intercollegiate document, Safeguarding Children and Young People in Care: Competencies for Health Care Staff.

I reassure noble Lords that these teams, as part of the safeguarding partners, will absolutely be required, under the existing duties in Sections 16E, 16G and 16K, to comply with the expectations set out in the working together statutory guidance and local arrangements. We are working closely with health, police and local authority national leaders to ensure that practitioners in the teams have the skills, expertise and knowledge they need, or need access to, to deliver effective child protection interventions.

On the specific point about the police, I want to be clear that the intention of broadening the category, as we have done in the government amendments, would not suggest that a volunteer special constable would be suitable for one of these roles, but we could envisage police staff who would be appropriately qualified. In fact, as I have said, regulations will set out the requirements for the skills and qualifications, including police representatives.

The College of Policing’s professionalising public protection programme is developing resources to make sure that the police workforce has enough of the right professionals, with the right competences, qualifications and experience, to work in multi-agency child protection teams. There are good examples of police forces providing expert staff for child protection work: Thames Valley Police deploys experienced senior police representatives to its local multi-agency safeguarding hubs, including detective sergeant equivalents. They are decision-makers and offer expertise to support their police representatives at all levels. Thames Valley will take this approach to staffing multi-agency child protection teams as well.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification. When I was speaking, she said that special constables would not be represented, and I think she has said that again just now. In the letter she sent to all Peers on 7 January, she said that, to Clause 3, the Government are laying two amendments to broaden which practitioners from the police can be deployed to multi-agency child protection teams so that it includes police, staff and special constables. Can the Minister explain that?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I regret that we included special constables. Given the criteria that will be set out in regulations for the level of expertise, experience and skills necessary to be part of these teams, I could not envisage a situation in which a volunteer special constable would be an appropriate part of these teams. I was about to reiterate that we are setting out in regulations the skills, knowledge and qualifications that all practitioners nominated in multi-agency child protection teams will need, and that these regulations will be subject to public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. In that way, we will be able to be clear about the types of people from those safeguarding partners who would be appropriate to be part of the teams.

Amendment 11 seeks clarity on the support that multi-agency child protection teams will provide to local authorities to keep children safe from harm. I have listened to requests to be more specific about what these teams will do in practice. That is why, last week, the department published a policy statement to give clarity about the scope of regulations for the operation of these teams. I hope noble Lords have had the chance to look at that. The statement makes it clear that the teams will deliver all statutory child protection functions, from strategy meetings to conferencing. The teams will lead investigations and make decisions about what needs to happen to keep children safe from harm and then hold agencies to account for delivering support. I hope the statement reassures noble Lords that we are working closely with multi-agency partners, and will continue to work with noble Lords and others, as we develop the regulations through public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny to make sure that these teams are the very best they can be.

Amendments 15 and 16 seek to allow the social worker and education practitioner in multi-agency child protection teams to operate on behalf of multiple local authorities, where teams are combined across local authority boundaries. As I clarified in Committee, local authority professionals in the teams must remain responsible for children in their area. This ensures that the local authority with statutory responsibility for the child continues to be accountable and that children do not fall between the cracks. Collaboration across areas and between practitioners will happen. In fact, Clause 4 creates a clear duty on all practitioners to share information to safeguard or promote the welfare of the child, regardless of local authority boundaries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I know this is semantics, but the point that I made about pathfinders is important. The pathfinders are trying out different approaches within the criteria and the framework set for them. They are discovering, as we suggested at some length when we talked about examples in Committee, different ways of doing things. They are also ensuring that we are doing this on a basis that will have the right professionals in the right place so that children do not fall between gaps—and in fact will actively close the gaps that exist within the system now—and from which we will continue to learn. I will come to the point about timing in a moment, because that is important.

I was just coming to the point about the round table with pathfinder directors of children’s services and representatives from each of the regions that I held to discuss the opportunities and challenges in implementing these new teams. I reassure noble Lords that I said specifically to my team in setting up the round table that I was interested in hearing not only from people who thought that everything was going well but from those who might be more sceptical as well. I have to say that I heard overwhelmingly from pathfinders that, while changing the approach to child protection has been challenging, the benefits of multi-agency expertise and working are already evidenced in the decisions and outcomes for children. For example, areas shared positive examples of innovative whole-family work enabled by multi-agency collaboration, and noted that more empowering and transparent practice has given partners confidence in the approach.

I want to take a moment to reassure noble Lords that we recognise the scale of the ask here. This is a complex national system reform that requires leadership, co-operation and commitment from agencies, and that requires us—the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, is right—to learn from the pathfinders. By the way, I undertake to ensure as far as possible that, as we continue, we are able to provide some of the evidence that the noble Baroness identified.

That is why, through the families first partnership programme, we are working, for example, with three police force areas—the Met, Thames Valley and West Mercia—to identify how we can create multi-agency child protection teams that align with policing footprints. This work includes over 40 local authority areas working together to create effective delivery approaches, and we will bring into that work representatives from health and education as well.

Finally, on delay, it is not the intention—assuming this Bill passes through both Houses—that the multi-agency child protection teams will instantly need to spring into action. It is not even the case, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, said, that we expect them to be fully in place during this calendar year. I want to reassure noble Lords that the provisions will not come into force before late 2027, following public consultation and further scrutiny of regulations by Parliament. We also have a comprehensive quarterly monitoring process to measure progress, impact and outcomes as the Families First Programme rolls out nationally and are working across sectors to share learning about what works. I just ask noble Lords not to slam the brakes on an important reform for which I think there has been considerable support, and on which work is already under way.

I turn to Amendments 250 and 251, on resourcing, funding and effective delivery of these teams. To be clear, as we were in Committee, safeguarding partners already have a joint and equal duty to work together to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area. The statutory guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children is clear about the expectations on safeguarding partners in making these local arrangements. Guidance will be updated in line with the new regulations to clarify what this means for delivering multi-agency child protection teams. Therefore, resource and funding are already agreed locally, and this will be the same for multi-agency child protection teams.

Once again, we are learning from the pathfinders. For instance, some areas are funding new roles; others are using existing or seconded resources, and some are using agreements between agencies to pool resources for multi-agency child protection teams. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seemed to suggest that it was wrong for different approaches to be taken in different areas. That is precisely the type of flexibility and local recognition of responsibilities in the way teams have been set up that is important.

The Children Act 2004 means that safeguarding partners can already work with relevant agencies, such as probation and youth offending teams, to support their arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Clause 3 will supplement these local arrangements and allow safeguarding partners to choose from a sub-list set out in regulations, which relevant agencies will work most closely with to support the multi-agency child protection team functions, agreeing this locally through co-operation memorandums. We say more on this in the published policy statement.

In Committee, I outlined the £523 million of funding made available in 2025-26 for national rollout of our children’s social care reform. Since then, we have confirmed a further £2.4 billion over the next three years. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that this is a significant and important investment that shows our commitment to reforming the system, to reforming it right and to improving protection for children. I hope, therefore, with the reassurance and clarification that I provided, that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw this amendment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I wonder if the noble Baroness could clarify two things. I apologise if I missed the first, but she went through a series of expectations for qualifications for staff in the multi-agency child protection teams and I did not hear her confirm that those would align with the intercollegiate document, so I would be grateful if she could confirm that in relation to health staff. Also, I wrote down that she said “these teams”— I was not sure whether that was the multi-agency child protection teams, the early help teams or both—will not be implemented until the end of 2027, which feels later than was previously projected. I wonder if she could clarify that.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

On the point about the NHS document on intercollegiate guidance, the point I was making was that we believe the provisions are already set out in the Working Together requirements. We will be able, of course, to set them out more fully in regulations; I am pretty confident about that. If I have gone beyond where I should have, I will make that clear.

When I referred to teams, I was in some ways shortening my speaking note. I think every time I did so, I was referring to multi-agency child protection teams. The point I was making was that many of those teams will already be set up and operating as part of the pathfinder process. But in recognition of the scale of the challenge, we are clear that we will take time to get the regulations right and continue the learning from the pathfinders, and to do that in a way that ensures we can all be confident that they will be successful. That is the reason for the timescale I set out.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness very much for that clarification, as I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. I also acknowledge the Government’s financial commitment to this programme.

In relation to my Amendment 6, the Minister said that a child protection plan should end only when there is a multi-agency child protection case conference. One could argue that under the Government’s proposed system, where the same social worker will work with a family but also chair that conference, there is the need for fresh eyes to look at those cases of very young children who are at risk of not having adequate protection and are not nearly so visible to society as those over the age of five, because obviously they are not in school. I am not convinced by the arguments the Minister made.

I am amazed that the Minister regrets she put special constables in the letter. I can imagine she is feeling a bit irritated about that, but I think a lot of people who will have received the letter are not in the Chamber, so I hope she will write to clarify that special constables will not be eligible, because that looked like a cost-cutting measure, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, alluded to.

In relation to cross-border work, I agree that one should not in any way blur accountability, and Amendments 15 and 16 aimed to introduce some more flexibility. But as the Minister knows, families move around a lot, particularly in London, so having rigid boundaries will be unworkable and more flexibility will need to emerge in future.

Turning to Amendment 17, whether they are pathfinders or pilots is semantics. I hear and absolutely believe what the Minister says about the Government seeing increasing commitments from some local authorities, but she is also aware that some very senior, experienced and committed people who want to see the best for children also have specific concerns. This was before my time—I am not for a second suggesting I would have got it right—but those who were involved in the special educational needs reforms and who introduced the Children and Families Act did so in the same spirit: to address an urgent problem that needed an urgent solution. However, without proper piloting that has ended up in a place that nobody intended. The spirit of my Amendment 17, together with the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is to avoid that happening again.

As I say, I am not convinced by the Minister’s explanation in relation to Amendment 6. We are talking about 65% of child deaths and serious harm occurring to that age group, so I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for his focus on bringing forward these amendments. They are obviously well intentioned, but His Majesty’s loyal Opposition harbour certain reservations. We of course recognise that safe- guarding arrangements should, wherever possible, be consistent across different childcare providers and settings. Many families both depend on and place a huge amount of trust in early years providers and nurseries. Therefore, approaches to safeguarding should be well co-ordinated and the relevant staff involved should be trained to a level where they feel fully confident and able to engage with safeguarding partnerships.

Indeed, only last month, Ofsted warned that early opportunities to identify children with special educational needs and disabilities are being missed. This can result in a lack of understanding of individual children’s situations, meaning that schools do not always take a flexible approach to their behaviour policies or make reasonable adjustments. There is of course a clear need for early years training to adapt to this emerging reality.

However, as was so eloquently put in Committee by my noble friend Lady Spielman, former Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills, there are key concerns about the capacity of providers to implement the proposed changes: namely, the majority of schools that on inspection fall down on safeguarding are small schools, primaries and special schools that struggle to cope with the complexity.

Given this, we are concerned about whether the amendments are feasible. While we believe in a co-ordinated, multi-agency approach, the inclusion of early years groups and nurseries to these partnerships may risk adding further layers of complexity that would not necessarily be of help. Nor would we wish the lines of responsibility for safeguarding to be blurred between ever more partners, to a point where it is no longer a functioning or focused local safeguarding partnership. No one would want the unintended result to be that safeguarding does not improve but administrative capacity declines.

These concerns remain about the implementation and impact in practice of the noble Lord’s amendments. Before the 2024 election, the Department for Education committed to setting out a timetable for a consultation covering education’s role in safeguarding. The Education Committee in the other place has recently launched a call for evidence as part of its ongoing inquiry to examine how safeguarding can be strengthened in nurseries, for childminders and in other early years settings under the early years foundation stage. There is yet to be concrete evidence to support the proposals here, and we feel that it would be potentially pre-emptive to introduce such amendments now.

These are obviously important issues which need to be consulted on further. We look forward to acting on the findings, as and when they are brought to your Lordships’ House. We support the aims of the amendments to support a holistic and thorough approach to safeguarding arrangements, but that approach must be evidence-based to ensure that providers have sufficient capacity and resources for this to work in practice.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

On group 3, particularly Amendments 7 and 8 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, let me be clear that I fully recognise the vital importance of ensuring that every education setting and childcare provider is fully embedded in local safeguarding arrangements. We are acutely aware of the appalling incidences of abuse that have occurred within certain nursery chains, and no one in this Chamber underestimates the gravity of those failures.

While I cannot comment on the specifics of ongoing reviews, I know that our thoughts will remain firmly with the children and families affected. I extend my thanks to the commitment of the honourable Members Munira Wilson, Tom Morrison and Tulip Siddiq, who have been powerful champions for the families and children affected. Their contribution underscores the importance of the reforms the Bill takes forward. It is precisely because we take this so seriously that we must avoid the temptation to duplicate duties unnecessarily, or to legislate in ways that create complexity rather than strengthen safeguarding practice.

I emphasise that the system already places clear multi-agency safeguarding duties on all registered early years settings through existing regulations. Clause 2 reinforces and clarifies these obligations by placing a duty on safeguarding partners to include education and childcare settings in their arrangements, and ensures that providers continue to take part in safeguarding activities. In short, the settings in scope of Amendments 7 and 8 are already captured by the legal framework and measures in this clause. Adding an extra layer of statutory designation risks creating legislative duplication with no clear operational benefit.

In addition, robust accountability is already in place, including through independent inspection and statutory guidance under the Children Act 2004. This ensures that relevant agencies participate fully in safeguarding arrangements and are supported to do so. Additional legislative compliance conditions, such as linking participation to funding or registration, are unnecessary. The existing framework, combined with the enhancements delivered through Clause 2, gives safeguarding partners the tools they need to secure meaningful and consistent co-operation across the sector.

I turn to Amendments 9 and 10, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. As he set out, the overarching aim of these amendments is important, and it is already recognised by the Government. Amendment 9 seeks to make specific provision for Ofsted inspection and reporting on nursery chains. Amendment 10 requires the statutory framework to be revised so that nursery groups must ensure that their safeguarding leads and staff are trained in, and engaged with, local safeguarding arrangements across all their settings. I hope I can reassure noble Lords that we are committed to reviewing nursery chain regulation, to improve market oversight and the quality and safety of early years education and childcare.

This commitment was first made in the Government’s recent Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life strategy. It was reconfirmed in the Statement that the Secretary of State made in the House of Commons in response to Operation Lanark, and I am happy to reconfirm it today in response to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey.

On Amendment 9, I appreciate the concern of noble Lords regarding Ofsted inspection of early years groups and chains so that safeguarding problems that span multiple settings can be identified and addressed at group level. Although Ofsted can already take action against settings that are linked by the same registered person, we are in complete agreement that we need further consideration of bespoke powers for the regulation of nursery chains to better safeguard the youngest and most vulnerable children. To that end, we have committed to working with Ofsted to review the regulation of early years chains. We expect this will very likely lead to recommendations relating to inspecting and reporting on chains. However, careful consideration is needed to ensure that we get this right before we make legislative change.

On Amendment 10, again, I appreciate the concern of noble Lords regarding safeguarding training in early years settings. In September 2025, we introduced new safeguarding training requirements within the Early Years Foundation Stage statutory framework. All early years staff must be trained in line with these, and designated safeguarding leads must know their local child protection procedures and how to liaise with local statutory children’s services agencies and local safeguarding partners. Any new requirements which would need to be considered at a chain level will form part of the previously mentioned nursery chain regulation review; they will be in scope of that review.

Given that, I hope that I have addressed the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Storey. He is right—particularly in the light of some of the devastating events that he referenced—to have brought these issues to the notice of this House. I hope that, given my reassurances, he feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her fulsome response. Like her, I have concerns—it is almost the opposite position to that of my noble friend Lord Addington—about large nursery chains, nursery businesses and large groups of nurseries run by a business where often decisions are made away from that individual nursery.

I should say that I was a head teacher and had a nursery of 100 places. If there was any issue, I was always on hand to deal with it and support my staff. I am wondering whether, if you have a nursery business of several dozen nurseries, you can have that immediate impact of change that might be required.

I add that after hearing about the parents in these two tragic cases, you feel helpless, and you want to do something. I pay tribute to them for, while grieving for their child, coming forward with ideas to improve the safeguarding arrangements. It is amazing that they can think of other children, having faced the loss of their own child.

I am very grateful to the Minister. She recognises the problem of those large chains and that we should work with, or talk to, Ofsted about how we can bring forward some recommendations in the future. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

12: Clause 3, page 4, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert—
“(d) a constable or relevant police employee who— (i) is nominated by the chief officer of police for a police area any part of which falls within the area of the local authority, and(ii) has experience in child protection.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and my other amendment to clause 3, at page 4, line 20, would broaden the range of persons with policing functions who may be nominated to a multi-agency child protection team, and requires a person nominated by a chief officer of police to have experience in child protection.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

14: Clause 3, page 4, line 20, at end insert—
““relevant police employee” means—(a) a person (other than a constable) who is—(i) employed, or engaged to provide services, for the purposes of a body of constables, and(ii) under the direction and control of a person who has the direction and control of a body of constables, or(b) a person who is—(i) employed by the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a police authority, and(ii) under the direction and control of a chief officer of police;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would define “relevant police employee” for the purposes of section 16EA of the Children Act 2004, inserted by clause 3, and as amended by my other amendment to clause 3, at page 4 line 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I will speak to the amendments in reverse order. We very much support having a single unique identifier. Unless the pilot of using the NHS number causes some unforeseen problems—we hope that that would not happen—we believe that it makes absolute sense to use the NHS number to link health and education. It is also important for children’s safeguarding: we need to know where they are, what is happening to them and when they change schools. It rightly brings added responsibility to schools, headteachers and governors.

We also believe that Amendment 19 is important. When there is a multi-agency approach, it is important that information and understanding are shared between different teams when cases are passed between them. This amendment rightly highlights the problem and comes up with a way forward.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We are cooking with gas today. We are all fresh—at this point.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, there has been strong interest in provisions to improve information sharing for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. I agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and others that information sharing is a necessary but not sufficient determinant of whether we have an effective practice. As others have identified, it is enormously important and has too often been lacking in cases where children have come to harm. It must be a basis for action.

The call for improved information sharing includes the long-requested introduction of a consistent identifier for children which mirrors provision for adults introduced as far back as 2015. As we have heard, there is broad support for these measures, with concerns focused on ensuring that they can be implemented successfully, appropriately and as soon as possible. The government amendments in this group aim to provide further clarity.

Amendment 19, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to require safeguarding partners to establish practical multi-agency arrangements for initial information sharing before Section 47 thresholds can be determined. As the amendment suggests, clear information sharing processes are crucial. However, as I have previously suggested, that needs to be followed by action, which is why safeguarding partners must already publish their multi agency arrangements, including how they identify and respond to children’s needs. Therefore, the requirements set out in the amendment would duplicate existing requirements. Local leaders must retain flexibility to establish effective systems for their context, including how information flows between services.

I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that it is neither our intention nor our belief that the legislation as currently drafted implies a one-way flow only—it does not. It determines precisely the sort of flows of information, backwards and forwards, that the noble Baroness rightly identified as fundamental to this being a success.

In addition to the existing requirements to publish multi-agency arrangements, prior to commencement we will consult on and publish statutory guidance, including a template data-sharing agreement, to help partners agree information flows and ensure timely and consistent information sharing within and across agencies. I hope that that provides the assurance that the noble Baroness was looking for.

I support the sentiment behind Amendment 23, also from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran: to broaden the consistent identifier regulation-making powers to ensure scrutiny of how the consistent identifier operates and which number is used. Government Amendment 21, introducing an information standard, and government Amendment 26, introducing a code of practice, also support the effective operation of the consistent identifier but are more focused.

As I already set out in Committee, we are piloting the NHS number only. We want to be assured of the benefits and information governance before naming a consistent identifier in legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

20: Clause 4, page 7, leave out lines 16 and 17
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 4, page 7, lines 11 to 14.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

24: Clause 4, page 8, leave out lines 10 to 13
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove provision no longer needed because of the protection provided by the new general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and which came into force on 20 August 2025.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, made a compelling case for the value of child contact centres in and of themselves and for the importance of having clear minimum standards, and achieving that through additional training and accreditation. I felt that the Minister gave a good answer in Committee on this specific case, when she highlighted the role of the National Association of Child Contact Centres. I do not in any way disagree with the aims of the amendment, but, having worked in a charity that did a lot of training and accreditation, my experience is that we can place too much weight on it and what it can achieve.

The point the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, made about unregistered contact centres is extremely important. Anything the Minister can say that would ensure that courts and magistrates have absolute clarity about whether a centre is or is not registered would be critical. If we are going to go down this route, having simple links for contact centres with their local specialist services, whether they be specialist domestic abuse services, drug and alcohol services, or whatever the issue is, might be the simplest and most effective way of making sure that these centres are as safe as they can possibly be.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, this amendment, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. It would require all providers of child contact centre services to be accredited by the National Association of Child Contact Centres to national standards set by the Secretary of State. In responding to this, I start by recognising, as all noble Lords have, the vital role played by the National Association of Child Contact Centres and the many dedicated child contact centres across England and Wales. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, made clear, their work is fundamental to the family justice system, providing supervised or supported contact in a safe, neutral environment, allowing children to maintain a meaningful relationship with a non-resident parent. The commitment of staff and volunteers to safeguarding and creating a child-focused space is invaluable. I express my sincere appreciation for the work that they and the NACCC undertake.

I understand the motivation behind this amendment, but the Government do not believe that it is necessary and are already responding to some of the points made in this debate and in the debate in Committee. The NACCC already accredits the majority of centres in England and Wales, with research showing that unaccredited centres are uncommon. In preparing for this, I asked the obvious question: how many unaccredited child contact centres are there? Interestingly, the Cordis Bright research that the noble Baroness referred to found that there was only a small number of unaccredited contact centres, but the report did not provide a figure or estimate for the number of unaccredited contact centres. When those working in accredited child contact centres who took part in the research were asked about unaccredited contact centres, they indicated that such centres were few in number. This may well suggest that we have made progress, due to the efforts of the NACCC, in ensuring that many more child contact centres are accredited by it.

Following the meeting that noble Lords had with my noble friend Lady Levitt, which has been mentioned by several noble Lords, a range of work has been commissioned and is being taken forward by officials at the Ministry of Justice. One of those pieces of work is for officials to work with the NACCC to further understand how we can identify the number of unaccredited contact centres in England and Wales.

Also following from that meeting, other streams of work are taking place that will, I hope, provide reassurance to noble Lords on some of the specific issues that they have raised. These include, first, exploring the possibility of introducing a protocol or similar mechanism for mediators to ensure that they refer families only to accredited centres. Secondly, several noble Lords raised an important point about ensuring that those in child contact centres are suitably trained. Another piece of work is carrying out a further review of the mandatory training already in place for child contact centre staff and volunteers in order to ensure that it is as good as it can be. As I have already said, we are developing a more robust understanding of where any unaccredited centres are and of any concerns that may exist in relation to them.

While I completely understand that the amendment is well intentioned, I do not believe that mandatory accreditation is the best way to approach the issues that have been raised. The NACCC already provides effective leadership and oversight to the majority of centres. Further to this, the work the Ministry of Justice is now taking forward will provide additional reassurance in this space. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment, given the good work that is already being undertaken in relation to the points that noble Lords have raised.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

Before the Minister sits down, what action can be taken against a centre that appears to be quite dubious and unaccredited? While the amendment is not being accepted, there is recognition that there may be activities going on which are effectively underground. The children who may be having contact with a family member—usually a parent—in such a situation might be exposed to quite serious risk.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I do not believe that there is evidence to suggest that that is the case. All the research suggests that there is a very small number of unaccredited centres. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby made an important point about how it is possible to identify centres that are accredited. The vast majority of them are. Given that it is clear that the NACCC accreditation scheme covers the vast majority, I would have thought that that is the appropriate route. As I have said, we are going to ensure that there is a protocol for mediators that means they use only accredited routes. I would have thought that that would also have been the case for courts.

An unaccredited child contact centre might be used in limited circumstances for specific, short-term purposes because of the individual circumstances of the case—for example, in order to limit the travel that a child had to do in particular circumstances. Local authorities are under a legal duty to ensure that such provision meets all statutory safeguarding requirements and promotes the child’s welfare, so there is another level of assurance in the system. I will refer to my noble friend Lady Levitt the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby about the ability of courts to always be able to determine the nature of the contact centres where they are referring children. He raised a reasonable point, and I am sure all of us would want to ensure that it is covered.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Before my noble friend sits down, I just want to be clear about one aspect. She talked about mediators recommending only contact centres that are registered. Of course, very often in court, particularly in private cases, there are no mediators; there are people self-representing, very often men. They are the ones who propose contact centres, which may or may not be registered. The point I was making was that it is not that straightforward for a court to find out the nature of the contact centre that is being recommended.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

No, and this was the point I was accepting when I said I would ensure that our noble friend Lady Levitt is informed about it from this debate. As I have said, I am sure we will want to give more thought to how the labelling, almost, of the accreditation that does exist for the vast majority of contact centres can perhaps be made more obvious to courts in the sorts of circumstances that my noble friend identified.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the contributions to the debate on this amendment. It seems to me that the debate has exposed two possible problems. First, there is no sanction for the creation or use of an unregistered contact centre. Secondly, there is a gap in the knowledge of what is available, whether registered or unregistered. The Cordis Bright report was aware of that gap, and I suggest it is a worrying gap. It may well be, as Cordis Bright reported, that there is only limited evidence as to the prevalence of non-accredited centres, but it is still a small number, which could do quite a lot of damage.

That said, I think it is important to understand that the courts, when ordering contact, will always apply the protocols that are laid down by the president of the Family Division. I am also reassured by the Minister’s indication that mediators and indeed, possibly, others who have responsibility for guiding people towards contact centres, will be required to use only accredited centres.

We are not working from a blank page; there is already an excellent network of centres. On that basis, and because of the work that the Minister has been good enough to indicate is being undertaken, particularly by the Ministry of Justice, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will respond briefly, given the hour. Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, concerns implementing a government child neglect strategy, and I absolutely understand his aim in advocating for this. It is right to raise issues concerning the neglect of children, but in my own experience, neglect almost always coexists with other forms of abuse or harm. I fear that focusing on one element of a child’s experience might lead professionals to overlook others that are frequently interlinked. There are real risks with that approach, so we on these Benches do not support the amendment.

I genuinely look forward to the Minister’s reply to Amendment 97 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. We had powerful speeches in favour of what has happened in Wales, and, I would argue, equally important speeches from my noble friends Lord Jackson and Lady Meyer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. These reminded the House of the current law and raised important balancing points about some of the impacts of the Welsh legislation. I am sympathetic to the push by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for transparency and understanding the data as the Government navigate this very difficult area.

On a smacking ban, the only point that has not been raised this evening, and which worries me—I am sure that nobody would disagree with this—is that children also suffer terribly from psychological violence, emotional abuse or coercion from their parents. The point was made early in the debate about the importance of parenting programmes and positive support for parents. I hope that the Minister can talk about the Best Start in Life hubs, and say that the Government are finding routes, which we all want to see, to support parents without having to criminalise behaviour.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a good debate in this group on new clauses regarding a national child neglect strategy and the removal of the reasonable punishment review in Wales. I will also speak to three government amendments that will ensure that providers of regulated children’s social care settings or youth detention accommodation are held accountable for their role in the ill-treatment or wilful neglect of under-18s in their care. As we have heard in the debate, this group of amendments raises important issues around child safety and well-being—areas to which the Government are wholly committed.

Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a national child neglect strategy. Protecting children from all forms of abuse and neglect is a key priority for this Government. Neglect accounts for 50% of all child protection plans in England, and we know that it is often cumulative. Harm builds up over time if not addressed early. This is why, along with measures in this Bill and backed by over £2.4 billion of investment, our focus is on strengthening multi-agency family help and child protection through national reforms, and statutory guidance that explicitly references neglect as a safeguarding and child protection concern throughout. These practical steps will support practitioners to identify and respond effectively to children and families who need support, including where neglect is present.

We also know that poverty can increase the risk of neglect, although I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that being poor does not imply that you will neglect your children. It does, of course, make your life more difficult. That is why the recently published child poverty strategy prioritises early intervention and integrated support for families, addressing stressors such as parental mental health difficulties, parental substance misuse and domestic abuse—factors that often co-occur with neglect.

I acknowledge the strong case made on this topic by the Liberal Democrats, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, when we met to talk about it. The Government have heard a range of representations on this issue, and I can commit to the House that we will continue to work with key stakeholders—including the Government’s What Works Network, Foundations, and the national child safeguarding practice review panel—on specific matters relating to child neglect, helping to shape our understanding of this complex issue.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 19th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

39: Clause 8, page 13, line 7, at end insert—
“(2A) In subsection (2), after paragraph (f) insert—“(g) financial literacy.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add services relating to financial literacy to the list of services in section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017 which may assist care leavers in, or in preparing for, adulthood and independent living, and about which a local authority in England must publish information.

--- Later in debate ---

Certainly, the evaluation of the pathfinder sites, published in November last year, although at a very early stage, highlights the encouraging progress, but the vital involvement of health comes through loud and strong. Given that pathfinders have prioritised the involvement of health and highlighted the problems where that has not been secured, the Government need to move and make it clear that this is not voluntary but essential.

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

My Lords, on Amendments 43 and 49, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, everybody who has contributed to the debate today, and certainly the Government, are fully committed to every care-experienced child having loving, life-long relationships with those they care about—particularly with siblings, as several noble Lords have focused on. We recognise that relationships are fundamental to identity, well-being and long-term outcomes.

Although I absolutely support their intent, neither of these amendments is necessary and would duplicate existing legislation. As stated in Committee and referenced today, there is already a legal duty on local authorities, in paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989, to “endeavour to promote contact” between looked-after children and their relatives, friends and other connected people,

“unless it is not reasonably practicable or consistent with”

the child’s welfare.

Additionally, Amendment 49 would not serve to strengthen the duty placed on local authorities to make contact arrangements between siblings; it requires only that where contact arrangements are made, they are recorded in the care plan—a duty that already exists in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the regulations. Existing statutory guidance, such as the Children’s Social Care National Framework, which sets the outcomes that local authorities should achieve for children, young people and families, already emphasises the importance of family networks. This, alongside other guidance, builds on the legislative duty to emphasise the importance of family networks and listening to children’s voices about who and what is important to them.

It is absolutely right that the care system and professionals involved in the care of looked-after children should help them to maintain relationships, including staying connected to siblings, family, carers and wider community networks. That is why the Government have been taking practical action to unlock any barriers to this and have already made clear commitments in this area. For example, as discussed last week, we are mandating the offer of family group decision-making at pre-proceedings where that is in the child’s best interests, which could of course include considerations about contact arrangements with family members.

The family-finding, befriending and mentoring programme mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, helps children in care and care leavers to identify and connect with the important people in their lives. We are currently funding 46 programmes across 43 local authorities, with 21 local authorities delivering lifelong links. The evaluation mentioned by the noble Lord is ongoing, but the interim evaluation report, published in September 2025, shows a statistically significant increase in reported relationships after children and young people have participated in the programme.

The noble Lord asked about the funding of the programme. We are determined to continue learning from the effectiveness of programmes such as this that support children and young people in care to build and strengthen relationships. Plans for the continuation of this programme beyond this financial year are currently subject to business planning and will of course also be subject to the continued evaluation that we are committed to.

Having said that, our view, and the view of stakeholders with whom we have consulted, is that issues in promoting contact, particularly between siblings, tend to be more practical and logistical than legislative or caused by a lack in legislation. My officials have met the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, who I know takes a very close interest in this, to discuss this important topic and have taken her very useful insights on board, which is why we will commit to identifying and sharing best practice on facilitating sibling relationships to ensure that local authorities support all children in care to have loving relationships with family members. We think that that is the right way to focus on ensuring that this is achieved in practice.

Amendment 61, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, aims to prevent looked-after children being placed far from home through amending the sufficiency duty on local authorities. The Government are clear that ensuring children can remain close to their home, community and connections with loved ones is crucial to improving the outcomes of care-experienced children, as several noble Lords have emphasised. That is why, to support local authorities in meeting their sufficiency duty, over £130 million is being invested in fostering hubs, kinship care and children’s homes.

Additionally, the Bill introduces legislation that will enable the Secretary of State to direct local authorities to establish regional co-operation arrangements to improve the commissioning of children’s social care placements and meet their sufficiency duty. However, the proposed amendment would not strengthen the existing sufficiency duty; in fact, we believe that it would weaken it. It would allow local authorities to provide and rely on more accommodation “near to” their area rather than “within” it, risking increased out-of-area placements and more children being placed far from home, not fewer. We also do not consider that changing the wording in the way proposed would have the effect on the effort required by local authorities that the noble Baroness wants it to have. It would not, in effect, have any meaningful impact on local authorities’ decision-making.

Amendment 62, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, seeks to add a requirement for a registered mental health practitioner to undertake an assessment of every child’s state of health when they become looked after, and for a registered mental health practitioner to be added as a professional who may undertake health reviews of looked-after children. As many noble Lords have identified during this debate, the significant trauma that many children who become looked after have experienced, and the lasting impact this trauma can have, means that providing effective mental health support is absolutely crucial.

Unless a child who is of sufficient age and understanding to consent, refuses to do so, all children must have an assessment of their health when they become looked after. Existing regulations require that this must be completed by a registered medical practitioner. It must include an assessment of emotional and mental health and it must be kept under review. The statutory guidance states that the health practitioner carrying out the assessment has a duty of clinical care to the child. This includes making the necessary referrals for investigation and treatment of conditions identified. So there is already a clear expectation for the necessary referral to be made where a child is assessed as needing investigation or treatment from a mental health practitioner. This means that it is not necessary to add the specific requirement for a registered mental health practitioner to the legislation. However, I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns. This will inform changes to statutory guidance to further strengthen implementation and ensure that children in care receive the services and support they need for their mental health and well-being. It is a strengthening of the position that we took in Committee.

Alongside that, we have also made progress since then. In December, the Health Secretary and the Minister for Children and Families announced that, in a boost for mental health support, the Government will trial a three-year pilot to make sure that children in care have access sooner to the support they need. This will build on existing work across the country, bringing together social workers and NHS health professionals to work together to provide direct mental health support to children and families when they need it most.

In relation to points made by the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Russell, the DfE is committed to understanding and addressing the shockingly high number of early deaths among care-experienced young people. As the department progresses this work, we will carefully consider how to improve the support that care leavers receive across a range of aspects of their lives, including their mental and physical health. We know, however, that there will be more to do to ensure that this focus on mental health is implemented as consistently and effectively as possible. We would welcome a meeting with the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children, which I know has made this a priority, to discuss this important matter and what more we can do. I thank the noble Baroness for raising this important point and for pushing it in the way that she has.

I turn to Amendment 71, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. This amendment is on registration and local authority oversight of accommodation for looked-after children and education provided in alternative settings. This Government are absolutely clear that placing children in illegal, unregistered homes is unacceptable. Looked-after children should only ever be placed in accommodation that is run by a registered provider. For children’s homes and supported accommodation, providers must be registered with Ofsted, the single national regulator that is able to ensure that safeguarding and quality standards are being met. Creating a second registration system run by local authorities, as proposed in this amendment, risks creating confusion and duplication. For this reason, we do not believe that this amendment is the right approach to reduce the use of unregistered accommodation placements.

In his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, focused on non-school, unregistered alternative provision. I welcome the noble Lord’s support for the proposals that we announced last year to strengthen protections for children in these settings, including for those in care. As I set out in the letter to which the noble Lord referred, these reforms comprise creating a new local regulatory framework and national standards. They are substantial and require careful engagement with the sector. Introducing these measures now, in the Bill, would bypass full parliamentary scrutiny. But we recognise the significance of what the noble Lord was saying and, instead, they will form part of our wider SEND and alternative provision reforms in the forthcoming schools White Paper, ensuring that they deliver for children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendments 46 and 47 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. In Committee and again this evening, we covered in detail the distress caused to parents and children by the very late timing of the announcement in relation to the support fund and by the cut in the size of the grant. In particular, Amendment 46 gives the Government an opportunity to review how best to use this funding ahead of the grant period in March 2027. I am not aware of any compelling evidence that supports the earlier decision to cut the grant size and to reduce the funding for specialist assessments, but if that exists perhaps the Minister can share it today. Of course, we on these Benches are open to improving the way funds are distributed, but we are genuinely concerned by the lack of visibility on what will happen next year. I hope very much that the Government will address this tonight.

I have also retabled my Amendment 100, which would give foster carers clear delegated authority for the children in their care on practical day-to-day matters. Foster carers have been clear that they would value this and, crucially, it is one of the reasons why we see too many leaving the profession. I hope the Minister can be more encouraging today than she was in Committee on this important point.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As I reply to this group of amendments, I assure noble Lords that I will try not to drench anybody during the course of my response—although I have now decided to set myself an ambition of juggling three bottles of water by the time we get to the end of Report.

Important issues are covered in this group. Amendments 46 and 47 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, concern funding for the adoption and special guardianship support fund and provide a further opportunity to debate these important issues. Around 3,000 children are adopted each year and more than 3,800 enter special guardianship. I salute all those who welcome these vulnerable, often traumatised children into their homes and hope that the centenary celebrations noble Lords have alluded to, taking place here this evening, enable a celebration of that contribution and, rightly, as we have heard in this debate, a challenge about how we can do our best to support those who undertake adoption and special guardianship in future.

Almost 57,000 children have received adoption and special guardianship support since 2015, and many of them more than once. Since April 2025, we have approved applications for nearly 16,000 children. However, it is important to remember that this is not the only source of funding. The Families First Partnership programme will total £2.4 billion over the next three years. That funding is available to both adoptive and kinship families and to the services that support them. We have already confirmed that adoption and special guardianship funding will be continued for 2026-27. Further details will be shared in due course through the usual funding announcements.

As several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Watson, have made clear, we need to think longer term about the future of adoption support, as we promised to Parliament in September that we would—and perhaps even more so as we celebrate the centenary of adoption. We will shortly set out plans to engage widely on this with the aim of understanding how best to support children and young people to thrive in their new families and get the support they need in the most effective way.

I turn to Amendment 100, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and thank her for raising this important issue again. I would have to look back at the record, but I have a considerable amount of sympathy on this, which I hope I shared in Committee. Foster carers offer crucial support to some of the most vulnerable children in our society. They provide love, stability and compassion to children and young people when they need it most. They therefore need to have the ability and the responsibility to make the decisions that they think are suitable for children.

The Government are prioritising fostering. Through the fostering recruitment and retention programme, we have been supporting over 60% of local authorities across England in 10 regional clusters to recruit and support foster carers. We know that we need to build on this to further accelerate foster-care recruitment and retention and we will soon publish a comprehensive set of measures to achieve this with regional care co-operatives and fostering hubs at the heart of these plans.

In relation to the issue specifically covered by this amendment, which seeks to ensure that foster carers have, by default, delegated authority on day-to-day issues, except where an alternative decision-maker is listed on the child’s placement plan, our guidance already sets out that foster carers should be able to make day-to-day decisions about the children in their care. I accept that too often we hear that this does not happen in practice, meaning that children in care miss out on normal childhood experiences and feel as if they are treated differently from their peers. I agree with the spirit of this amendment, but it is not necessary to include this in this Bill. Local authorities should already delegate all day-to-day decisions, and we have clear guidance that sets this out. We will nevertheless be taking further action on this issue as the noble Baroness pushes us to do.

Our upcoming fostering publications will set out our plans for ensuring that foster carers can feel confident in making day-to-day decisions for the children in their care. Our publications will also set out plans to reform the fostering national minimum standards. These will also reflect our position on day-to-day decision-making and how fostering services can support carers to make these decisions. Any changes to the national minimum standards, including those concerning decision-making for foster carers, would benefit from a period of consultation with relevant stakeholders. I accept the noble Baroness’s point that it is important that we make progress in this area.

Given that commitment and our plans on the longer-term provision of adoption support, I hope that I have addressed the concerns of noble Lords and that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful that the Minister agrees with the spirit of this amendment. She highlights that some parents have made up the difference and found the money themselves to carry on with this. I find it perverse that, for children with all sorts of problems who need therapeutic counselling, it is suddenly going to stop because the money is not there. Some parents have made up the difference, but those who cannot afford it are not able to do so. Those who come from a poor background and do not have the money are probably the ones who most need it. Those who have got the money can dip their hand in their pocket and pay the difference. That cannot be right in 21st-century UK. For those reasons, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

50: Before Clause 10, insert the following new Clause—
“Children in temporary accommodation(1) After section 213A of the Housing Act 1996 (homelessness: co-operation in certain cases involving children) insert—“213AA Duty of local housing authority in England to notify in certain cases involving children(1) This section applies where a local housing authority in England secures that accommodation is available for occupation by a child, in response to an application for assistance under this Part, unless securing that such accommodation is available means the authority ceases to be subject to the duty under section 193.(2) Except as provided in subsection (3), the authority must ask the parent of the child—(a) to agree to the authority notifying each relevant body applicable to the child that accommodation has been secured for the child as mentioned in subsection (1), and(b) if that agreement is given, to provide the authority with information about those bodies to enable the authority to identify each relevant body applicable to the child.(3) If the child— (a) is 16 or 17 years old,(b) is living independently from their parents, and(c) is the applicant for assistance within the meaning of section 183(2),the authority must ask the child as provided in subsection (2)(a) and (b).(4) If the parent or child (as the case may be) agrees to the authority making the notification mentioned in subsection (2)(a), the authority must take reasonable steps to notify each relevant body applicable to the child within 14 days beginning with the latest of—(a) the day on which the authority receives agreement,(b) the day on which the information about the relevant body is provided to the authority, and(c) the day on which the child is placed in accommodation.(5) The duties in subsections (2) and (4) only arise once in relation to each application for assistance under this Part.(6) In this section “relevant body” means—(a) the general medical practice in England with which the child is registered;(b) the body in the child’s local authority area in England through which health visiting services are available to the child;(c) the appropriate authority of a relevant educational institution in England at which the child is a registered pupil or student.(7) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations for the purposes of this section—(a) specifying any other description of body as a “relevant body”;(b) specifying any other institution as a relevant educational institution;(c) specifying the appropriate authority to be notified under this section in relation to an institution specified under paragraph (b).(8) In this section—“appropriate authority” means—(a) in relation to an Academy, a non-maintained special school, a special post-16 institution, an independent school or a provider of post-16 education or training, the proprietor;(b) in relation to a school maintained by a local authority or an institution within the further education sector, the governing body;“child” means a person under the age of 18;“parent” in relation to a child, includes any person—(a) who is not a parent of the child but who has parental responsibility for the child, or(b) who has care of the child, disregarding any absence of the child at a hospital or boarding school or any other temporary absence;“parental responsibility” has the meaning given by section 3 of the Children Act 1989;“proprietor” means the person or body of persons responsible for the management of the school or institution;“relevant educational institution” means—(a) an Academy (as defined by section 579(1) of the Education Act 1996) other than a secure 16-19 Academy (within the meaning of section 1B(7) of the Academies Act 2010);(b) a school maintained by a local authority (within the meaning of section 142(1) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998); (c) a non-maintained special school (within the meaning of section 337A of the Education Act 1996);(d) an independent school (within the meaning of section 463 of the Education Act 1996);(e) an institution within the further education sector (within the meaning of section 91(3) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992);(f) a special post-16 institution (within the meaning of section 83 of the Children and Families Act 2014);(g) a provider of post-16 education or training that provides the kind of education or training mentioned in section 123(1)(d) or (g) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006;(h) a provider of post-16 education or training that provides education or training, other than in institutions within the further education sector, which is suitable to the requirements of persons aged 16 or over but under 19 and funded wholly or partly by the Secretary of State.”(2) The amendment made by this section does not apply in relation to a child for whom a local housing authority in England has secured accommodation in response to an application for assistance under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 which was made before the date on which this section comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would insert a new section into the Housing Act 1996, imposing a duty on local housing authorities in England to notify health and educational bodies when a child is placed in temporary accommodation where the parent (or the child in some cases) agrees to that notification being made.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, we on these Benches warmly welcome the amendment and thank the Government for tabling it.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their thanks and contributions. Tabling and discussing this amendment has been an important first step. We are clear that, if it is agreed, as it appears it will be—this goes to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Young, raised about some of the technical areas where we need to ensure that this works effectively—we will continue to work across departments so that it has the impact that the Government desire: to strengthen information sharing so that educational institutions and health providers are aware where children living in temporary accommodation may require additional or different support.

As I said, alongside the legislation we will provide guidance for local authority housing officers and relevant education and health bodies to ensure that the duty is well understood by all relevant bodies. Where possible, we will update existing guidance to minimise burdens and support accessibility.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, it is worth saying that this is one part of the action that the Government are taking with respect to temporary accommodation. Through our homelessness strategy, published in December, we have set out a range of measures to support families with children in temporary accommodation, including protecting record levels of investment in tackling homelessness and rough sleeping, and eliminating the use of bed and breakfast accommodation for families, other than very short-term use in emergencies, by the end of this Parliament. We have set an ambition to cut school days lost for children in temporary accommodation, with a stronger role for pastoral teams to work closely with families in that situation, including preventing unlawful removal from a school’s roll. We have made a clear pledge to prevent deaths caused by gaps in healthcare. To achieve that, there will be proactive health outreach to families in temporary accommodation, and a clinical code to improve data and prevent incidents. We will end the practice of discharging newborns into bed and breakfast, or other unsuitable housing, and work with the NHS on safe and robust pathways.

In response to another question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Young, there is no duty within this amendment to notify the Welsh, but we will look at how we can do that in regulations in the future, if needed. I wholly take his point, given that I come from that part of the country myself, about areas that are close to the border, where moves may be happening across the border.

I will write to noble Lords with an update on the timetable for the implementation of this very important step. I thank noble Lords for the welcome they have given it this evening.

Amendment 50 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

I have added my name to Amendment 53. It is vital that children who are deprived of liberty can access quality education. Otherwise, we really are depriving them of hope and a future. I too quote the Children’s Commissioner:

“For the very small number of children where controls on their freedom are necessary in order to keep them or others safe, we must make sure they have not only excellent, individualised care, but also full protection under the law … we have a moral obligation to ensure that children at risk of harm are not simply contained and kept out of the community, but are seen, heard, and given the care and support they need to thrive”.


She continues later:

“Where a deprivation of liberty is authorised, the conditions should include a plan for meeting the child’s specific needs through intensive intervention and work aimed at helping them to be safe in the long-term. This plan should be co-produced by health and social care if appropriate, and could include mental health support, mood and behaviour management, work on addressing risks of exploitation, educational support, and any other specialist therapeutic intervention that is required”.


Once again, adding one word to the Bill could change many futures.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for raising important points regarding Clause 11, which, as noble Lords have identified, relates to some of the most vulnerable children in the country. I know that noble Lords rightly feel particularly strongly about this measure. I thank the noble Baroness for her engagement with my officials ahead of this debate, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield.

It is important to remember that Clause 11 will already make an important change from some of the situations identified by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, correctly and graphically identified some of the challenges with the current operation of the system, which is why this measure seeks to bring more children who would otherwise be deprived of their liberty under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court within a statutory scheme where they will benefit from enhanced safeguards and protections, which many of the amendments in this group are seeking.

Turning to these amendments, I reiterate that this measure is intended not to encourage the practice of depriving children of their liberty but to ensure that there are appropriate rights and safeguards in place to prevent children being deprived of liberty inappropriately or for longer than is absolutely necessary. We are committed to reducing the number of children in complex situations as part of reforms to rebalance the system away from crisis intervention towards earlier help and to prevent children’s needs escalating to the point where they need to be deprived of their liberty, and to ensuring that when they are, it can happen in more appropriate accommodation than has been the case up to this point.

We are grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its scrutiny and have, in government Amendment 57, accepted its recommendation that regulations developed using the powers under Section 25 of the Children Act 1989 be subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring parliamentary scrutiny and approval in both Houses.

Amendment 56 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is about joint funding arrangements between partners for children deprived of their liberty under this measure. The Government wholly agree that care for these children must be jointly funded and delivered through an integrated, whole-system approach, which should include social care, health, education and youth justice. However, we do not wish to restrict pooled funding arrangements in the way this amendment does, tying it to the existence of the Section 25 order. We think pooled funding arrangements would be beneficial to a wider cohort of looked-after children, including those whose order has recently come to an end or who are at risk of needing to be deprived of their liberty. This requires testing first to ensure that the right cohort of children and relevant partners are included.

That is why the Department for Education, with NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care, is leading a national programme to tackle underlying systemic failures and to support local areas to work together more effectively. We are building cross-system integration, starting with the peer collaborative convened by the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory—rightly praised by several noble Lords this evening—which identified key elements for transforming care for children with complex trauma, supporting professionals to stand together so that risk is better tolerated and supported.

West Sussex, part of the South East Regional Care Cooperative, is working closely with the ICB to test how a cross-system team can drive integrated support, build an understanding of need and identify gaps in the current pathways across health, social care and justice for this cohort of children. We are not waiting; we are making quick progress in a way that is most likely to be appropriate and solve the problems. Next year we will expand to pilots, where we will evaluate methods of pooled funding, developing best practices that can be adopted and adapted by other local areas. We know that pooled funding works—such as through the better care fund for adults—but legislating now would be premature. We must first test and refine the most effective approach to ensure that the eventual framework enables the right level of cross-system integration and innovation.

Amendment 55 on recovery plans, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, aims to ensure that there are plans to remove restrictions from a child. The Government agree that no child should be deprived of their liberty any longer than absolutely necessary, which is why there are already several existing duties on local authorities in this regard, including the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of any child looked after by them, and that placement decisions are informed by a care plan based on an understanding of the child’s needs and best interests.

Rather than legislate further in this space, diverting local authorities’ attention toward navigating an increasingly complex statutory framework instead of focusing on the child’s needs, we want to strengthen the way in which existing legislation is applied, re-emphasising the need for a care plan that is co-designed between all the professionals involved in a child’s care and treatment.

As part of the court application, it is the practice of local authorities to submit the child’s full care plan. The court should be provided with both the restrictions they plan to impose and the action and progress required to end restrictions as quickly as possible. The plan should be formulated with input from all those professionals involved in the child’s care and will be scrutinised by the court and used to assess progress. If the court is not satisfied about the level of detail included in the plan to allow it to monitor progress and de-escalation, the court should require further input from the relevant professionals.

Similarly, regarding Amendment 60 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, relating to the abilities of independent reviewing officers to escalate concerns on the implementation of a child’s plan to Cafcass, IROs already have the statutory power to perform this function. They are responsible for monitoring the performance of local authorities in relation to a child’s care plan and must consider escalating cases to Cafcass whenever appropriate. This includes issues related to deprivation of liberty. It is therefore not necessary to legislate to expand the legal duties of IROs.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

57: Clause 11, page 17, line 25, at end insert—
“(9A) In section 104 of the Children Act 1989 (regulations and orders)—(a) in subsection (3A), after “(3B)” insert “, (3BZA)”;(b) after subsection (3B) insert—“(3BZA) Regulations fall within this subsection if they are regulations made in the exercise of the power conferred by section 25(2) or (7).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that regulations made under section 25(2) or (7) of the Children Act 1989 (use of accommodation for restricting liberty) as amended by clause 11, will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 19th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

65: Clause 12, page 22, line 13, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) In section 37 (service of documents)—(a) in subsection (1)—(i) omit the words from “carrying” to “agency”;(ii) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (a);(iii) at the end of paragraph (b) insert“; or(c) by being sent by email to the person’s email address.”;(b) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) A notice or other document sent to a person by email is, unless the contrary is proved, to be treated as having been served on the working day immediately following the day on which it was sent.”;(c) after subsection (5) insert—“(6) A person’s (P’s) email address for the purposes of this section is—(a) an email address identified for the time being by P, or by a person who manages an establishment or agency carried on by P, as an address for contacting P, or(b) if an email address is not so identified, an email address which the person serving the notice or other document believes is used by P.For the purposes of this subsection, a person “identifies” an email address by providing it to a registration authority or publishing it.(7) In subsection (3A) “working day” means a day other than a Saturday, a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in England and Wales.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow for notices under Part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000 to be served on parent undertakings and others by email.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

66: Clause 13, page 23, leave out lines 23 to 29
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove provision no longer needed because of the protection provided by the new general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and which came into force on 20 August 2025.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

67: Clause 18, page 35, line 29, leave out “Except as provided by subsection (9),”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 18, page 35, line 35.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

72: Clause 20, page 38, line 33, leave out “aged 16 or 17”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that for the purposes of the care provider offence in section 21 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (as amended by clause 20) “regulated care” includes care or support provided for any child rather than only a child aged 16 or 17.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

78: Clause 23, page 41, line 9, leave out paragraph (a)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove provision no longer needed because of the protection provided by the new general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and which came into force on 20 August 2025.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

80: Clause 26, page 44, line 35, leave out “Except as provided by subsection (3),”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 26, page 45, lines 1 to 5.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Con)]

My Lords, I did not intend to speak but I too was greatly moved by the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and I have had the experience of trying to care for a child in intensive care while worrying about another child at home. It is not an experience I would wish on anyone. It led me to become a trustee of the Cosmic charity, which tries to help families going through these types of experiences at the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, said, charities do incredible work supporting families in the most difficult circumstances. I urge the Government to think about what work they could do to look at the amendment and to see what more could be done to support parents and children in this situation.

Switching lanes to a Treasury mindset, I also support my noble friend Lady Barran’s Amendments 99 and 101. I know that the Government are sincere in their efforts to give every child the best possible start in life. I also know that at the Treasury and across Whitehall there is a huge push on government efficiency. This strikes me as an area where our failure to invest properly and consider how we can prevent these tragedies occurring has a huge fiscal cost, as well as the enormous emotional cost that we have heard about today.

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

My Lords, as others have said, this has been an important debate on two issues that go to the heart of how we need to care for those in the most vulnerable and difficult circumstances, and we share the objective of ensuring that we do better in both situations.

Amendments 99 and 101 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, concern support for birth parents who have had a child removed from their care and the collection of national data on repeat removals, respectively. This Government recognise that supporting birth parents can have a significant impact on keeping children safely at home and that more can and should be done.

I think it will be a theme of several of the groups this afternoon—in fact, it has been previously—that in some ways it is inevitable that as legislators we turn to legislation to deal with examples of not good enough practice where we want to achieve change. That is understandable, and in many cases, it is the right thing to do. Equally in my experience, strong practice, good evidence and innovation, often based on local needs, are a more effective way to achieve change. We need to be aware that mandating removes flexibility from local authorities to respond to local needs and priorities, increases local authority burdens and risks diverting funding from other preventive services that are not mandated by the legislation.

Also, we do not currently have a robust enough evidence base to mandate specific interventions nationally. This would also restrict innovation and deter locally developed interventions—for example, in Lincolnshire, whose TIME programme works with mothers who have experienced or are at risk of repeat removals of children from their care. Wolverhampton has a dedicated team supporting parents who have had a previous removal, and Warwickshire has its return home programme. We are already supporting the expansion of these services through the families first partnership programme, which is embedding the whole-family focus that noble Lords have rightly called for across children’s social care. That programme is backed by £2.4 billion of ring-fenced funding for prevention in this spending review period. It has, for example, already supported Redbridge to expand its pre-birth and post-birth service to promote earlier intervention with parents at risk of removals.

Through the families first partnership programme and wider reforms, we want to ensure that children’s social care support does not automatically drop away from a parent if they have a child removed from their care. The aim has to be to embed whole-family working throughout the children’s social care system in order to prevent future removals and to support children in returning home from care safely. We have previously committed to updating our Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023: Statutory Guidance to set out explicitly our expectations that birth parents are offered support. The updated FFP programme guide will also explicitly reference how the programme’s funding can be used to provide this support and will give examples of best practice.

On data collection, while equally, I support the sentiment of Amendment 101, once again I do not agree that a mandated collection is the right course of action or that it would have the desired impact. Mandatory collection would significantly increase the burden on local authorities, take resource away from service delivery and necessitate a significant change from existing practice that would require detailed work to assess feasibility and proportionality. Our wider reform programme is improving data collection and local information sharing. This will have a more positive impact on targeting support at a local level than a national collection.

Amendment 90, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, concerns a report into the barriers faced by the parents of critically ill children. I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Katz when a related amendment was tabled on Report on the Employment Rights Bill. I thank the noble Baroness for bringing this matter to the attention of the House, and, importantly, I acknowledge the resilience and courage shown by Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis in founding the charity It’s Never You and supporting other parents who find themselves facing similar unimaginably challenging personal circumstances. Parents and children in such a situation deserve and need support, and I know that that is the call noble Lords are making today.

My honourable friend in the other place, the Minister for Children and Families, Josh MacAlister, met with Ceri and Frances on 7 January, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson and the honourable Member for North East Hertfordshire, Chris Hinchliff, to discuss the charity’s work and this amendment. Caring for a critically ill child can affect parents’ mental health in different ways, as we have heard. The Government are committed to delivering the 10-year health plan, which sets out ambitious plans to boost mental health support across the country. We will transform the mental health system so that people can access the right support at the right time.

Other changes in the plan which will support parents of critically ill children include actively involving carers—in this case, parents—in the care planning of those they care for, as well as improved identification and support of people in such a situation to better understand their responsibilities and to provide more targeted support. In addition to mental health impacts and support, the amendment raises financial and employment pressures. The Government can provide financial support through the carer’s allowance and universal credit to those providing unpaid care to a severely disabled child, and are spending record amounts, due to be around £4.5 billion this year, on the carer’s allowance.

We recognise the considerable sacrifice that parents in this situation must make, and the impact that that can have on their employment. Parents who are employees are currently entitled to emergency time off for dependants, unpaid parental leave and unpaid carer’s leave, all of which may help them to manage situations of serious childhood illness. We know that many employers will go beyond the statutory minimum to support their staff in such distressing situations, and it was good to hear an example.

As announced by my noble friend Lord Katz at the Report stage of the Employment Rights Act, the Department for Business and Trade is working to launch a consultation on employment rights for parents and caregivers of seriously ill children. This will be the first government consultation specifically on the employment rights of these parents. This will consider whether a new leave entitlement in the workplace should be introduced, such as the proposal for Hugh’s law, campaigned for passionately and tirelessly by the charity It’s Never You.

On 11 December last year, my honourable friend the Minister for Employment Rights and Consumer Protection, Kate Dearden, announced that Hugh’s law will have its own chapter in the consultation. It will make sure that the voices of charities, healthcare professionals and families with a seriously ill child are heard, to ensure that any proposals put forward for consultation will reflect the needs of children and their parents. This recognises that more work needs to be done to understand the employment impact on parents of seriously ill children and the precise support that may be needed.

Lastly, in addition to this consultation, I am pleased to be able to tell the House that on the amendment before us calling for a report into barriers facing parents of critically ill children, the Government will take further action and commission a report on the mental health impact on the families of children with a terminal diagnosis. This will include a review of the available evidence and cost effectiveness. Ministers from the Department of Health and Social Care will meet with stakeholders, including Ceri and Frances, to discuss the scope of the report. We do not require a legislative duty to conduct this report, which could in fact slow down its progress, so we do not believe that this amendment is necessary. However, I hope that this commitment and other action being taken by the Government underscore the importance we are giving to this issue and to better supporting families in such difficult and tragic circumstances. I hope that noble Lords are reassured, and that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, talked about the actions that the Government could take today to stop some of the harms that children experience online. I do not know why the Government’s announcement yesterday was not one that they were going to take some of those actions. Maybe we will get that next week—you live in hope when you are in opposition—but we need to take this step tonight. I appreciate that the Liberal Democrats argue that they have worked on their amendment. I know that my noble friend raised this at Second Reading, he brought these amendments in Committee, the House has had a chance to think about them, and my noble friend and other colleagues across the House have worked tirelessly on this. The evidence is absolutely clear of the need to act. There are parents behind me in the Chamber tonight—I can feel them behind me—but also all around the country who have watched their children suffer terrible pain and have suffered unimaginably themselves. There are parents who have spoken out, but there are also parents and children who carry their pain in suffering. This is the time to do the right thing and to support my noble friend’s amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, it is clear from the debate that we have had this evening that this is an issue about which there is considerable concern. This Government recognise those concerns about the impact of screen time and about children’s online safety, particularly given some immensely troubling cases. This is a topic of profound national interest and, understandably, as we have also heard today, there are a range of opinions. However, one thing that we are all aligned on is the importance of keeping children safe. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology set out just yesterday in the other place, we are determined to help parents, children and young people to navigate these issues. We know many in this House and the other place have concerns around children’s online safety, how much screen time they get and how this can impact well-being. Rest assured that the Government hear those concerns and are prepared to act to deal with them.

I will come to yesterday’s announcement of a new consultation looking at how to improve children’s relationship with social media, but we should first recognise the significant action that this Government have already taken. The Online Safety Act brought in one of the most robust systems globally, with ground-breaking steps to tackle illegal content and activity and to protect children from harmful and age-inappropriate content. Much discussion today has been, as some have called it, frustration at the extent to which that is being fully utilised, but Ofcom has been prioritising its initial enforcement action against the most egregious harms, such as child sexual abuse material, self-harm content and children accessing pornography.

We fully expect further enforcement action to come. We have been very clear to Ofcom that it has the Government’s full backing to take enforcement action. We have since built on the Act’s foundations. First, we made content that promotes self-harm and suicide a priority offence. This provides users the strongest protections in the Act against this awful content. Last week my noble friend Lady Lloyd of Effra stood in this Chamber and confirmed that we will expedite legislation to criminalise the creation of non-consensual intimate images, and that this will be designated a priority offence under the Online Safety Act. Following this we made intimate image abuse and cyber flashing priority offences, and following that we have introduced an offence in the Crime and Policing Bill to criminalise AI models used to create child sexual abuse material. But we know that there is more to be done.

Amendments 91 and 106 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, seek to update the early years foundation stage statutory framework and ensure a public information campaign on screen use by children aged nought to five. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, has prosecuted this case with considerable energy and by bringing evidence to the Government. She has engaged well and the Government have taken action. Last week my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education announced that we will publish new practical, evidence-informed guidance for parents on early years screen time. Following a review led by the Children’s Commissioner and Professor Russell Viner, the new guidance will be published this April and made available to parents through the Best Start in Life website, giving them the clarity and support they are asking for to navigate screen time with their youngest children. The first meeting of the advisory group is tomorrow.

As part of this, we are going further still on screen time by developing guidance for parents of children aged five to 16, building on the early years guidance already under way. This will help parents to navigate the issue and support healthy conversations with their children about screen time. We are working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS to ensure that screen time guidance and messaging to parents and families are delivered through the most suitable and impactful channels to ensure that all professionals, including those in the health system, have simple and practical messages to offer parents. We will use multiple routes, extending beyond government channels, to raise awareness of it among parent audiences, including the Best Start in Life website, designed to provide trusted and supportive information for parents.

We think this new guidance should be available for early years practitioners. We will update the non-statutory guidance to provide further information and emphasis on screen time and outline the considerations around adult use of technology within settings and any implications this has on interactions with children. Where needed, the provider guidance will go beyond the early years screen time guidance for parents and we will take the next opportunity to incorporate the updated help for early years providers guidance in the early years foundation stage frameworks. In addition, the department is preparing to review our non-statutory curriculum guidance for early years settings, Development Matters. As part of this, we will include information on screen time and digital literacy to support early years practitioners and teachers to build and design an effective curriculum.

We are taking more action on appointing an expert panel to inform guidance for the sector on the effective and safe use of digital devices and CCTV. If findings from that review indicate that the requirements within the early years foundation stage need to be strengthened, we will of course do so. On the point about timing, we are able to commit that substantial changes will be made to the early years foundation stage after September 2026, but we will do this as soon as possible and no later than April 2027.

The provisions of the Online Safety Act have set the foundations and we are taking further immediate action, with new screen time guidance to support parents of early years children and practitioners. But we have always been clear that we will continue acting to protect children online and their wider well-being. Most debate on amendments today has been on those that seek to regulate children’s relationship with social media. Amendment 92 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nash, is on VPN services. Amendment 94A was also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nash. I accept the points made by noble Lords that the noble Lord has prompted considerable debate on this. Amendment 94B was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley. Amendments 108 to 110A were all tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. It is clear that there is a range of different views on the action that we need to take, even as there is a consensus that action is needed.

As many will be aware, yesterday the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology announced that we are taking still further action, because keeping children safe online is a top priority for the Government. We will launch a short, sharp consultation on how to improve children’s relationship with social media. This will be a three-month consultation, with the Government reporting back in the summer. We are determined to help parents, children and young people deal with these issues, with a lasting solution that gives children the childhood they deserve, enhances their well-being and prepares them for the future. As we have seen play out in this debate today, while there is consensus that a problem remains, there is a difference of opinion on how children’s relationship with social media and screen time should be further tackled. This is shown, as several noble Lords have identified, by some of the most prominent voices in this field believing that a social media ban is not the right answer. This is exactly why we are consulting on this matter.

As the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology stated yesterday, this is not about whether we should act; it is about how we should act. The consultation will seek views on a range of measures on many issues that have been raised: determining the right minimum age for children to access social media, including exploring a ban for children under a certain age; exploring ways to improve the accuracy of age assurance; and reviewing whether the current age of digital consent is the right age. It will also include reviewing children’s use of VPNs and how these can circumvent online safety protections. It will be accompanied by a national conversation. It is centring the voices of parents, children, those with lived experiences and people who work closely with children across the public sector. We will be sure to capture voices from across society, including the most vulnerable.

Rest assured that we intend to move quickly on this. As I say, it will be a three-month consultation, with the Government reporting back in the summer. To reassure the House, as the Secretary of State set out clearly yesterday, we want to act on this. We have had constructive conversations with noble Lords about these issues and we are keen to continue those conversations ahead of Third Reading to find a way forward on the Bill that allows action to be taken following the consultation and, if necessary, to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading to enable the Secretary of State, through secondary legislation, to deliver the relevant, evidence-based outcomes of the consultation. As I have set out, the question is not whether the Government will take further action—we will act robustly. The question is how to do this most effectively. I hope that this will reassure noble Lords of the Government’s intention and that they will feel able not to press their amendments in this area.

Finally, I turn to Amendments 93 and 110B, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Nash and Lord Storey. Amendment 93 would require any device sold in the UK to be preloaded with technology to prevent the recording, sharing and viewing of child sexual abuse material. Amendment 110B would prevent the creation, distribution and possession of child sexual abuse material. I acknowledge noble Lords’ intention to protect children through these amendments. I want to be clear that the Government share the ambition to protect children from nude imagery and to prevent the spread of child sexual abuse material online. That is why, in the violence against women and girls strategy, we have made it clear that we want to make it impossible for children in the UK to take, share or view nude images.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, responds, I would like a small point of clarification from the Minister. I very much welcome the government amendments and congratulate the Government on what they are doing on free school meals. This is all very welcome, but in introducing it, the Minister said that the additional cohort would get a free school meal on request. She mentioned how the Government will make it easier for families to find out whether they are eligible, but can she say a little more about how they have to apply? Will it be as easy as possible?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Absolutely, it will be. First, by virtue of the fact that it is now open to all those on universal credit without the £7,400 cut-off, it is much clearer to families, to those supporting them and to schools who is eligible. Secondly, as I said, the provisions that enable the sharing of information, and therefore eligibility checks, will now also be open to parents themselves, not just through local authorities.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her encouragement. I am not sure whether I wanted the accolade of being the anti-Thatcher milk donor, but I will take whatever she gives me.

I am encouraged by the Minister’s commitment. I managed to write down only “within six months” before the next thing she said—unfortunately, the ink in my pen ran out—so clearly parliamentary time will be available. I thought the Minister made encouraging remarks about the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but I feel that the noble Baroness might appreciate a few lines to expand on her final question. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 28th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for his relentless focus on tackling poverty through the Big Issue and Big Issue Invest, investing in social enterprises, social purpose businesses and charities trying to end poverty and reduce inequality in the UK.

Your Lordships’ House is united in its determination to address child poverty and the range of complex issues that drive it. While we fully recognise the firm intent behind this amendment, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition retain a number of reservations, which we shared in Committee. We unequivocally hold a desire to reduce child poverty, but the issue is deeply complex. We have concerns that legally binding targets determined by central government risk overlooking the local and regional variances in the causality and the experiences of child poverty. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, highlighted in Committee, the pursuit of targets can often shift the focus on to particular statistics rather than people’s lived experiences. Central government must be able to adapt to ever developing needs and realities, in addition to enabling local authorities and organisations—which are often better placed to understand these esoteric local challenges—to act accordingly.

We will therefore welcome seeing the details of the Government’s child poverty strategy when it is published in the autumn, including new monitoring and evaluation arrangements to track progress, which, with the right strategy for delivery, should yield results. We once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for his dedication to this vital issue. While we cannot support the amendment directly, we strongly welcome the intentions behind it.

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

My Lords, Amendment 107, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to set legally binding child poverty reduction targets. I agree with other noble Lords that we have a shared objective to tackle child poverty. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for his commitment, the campaigning that he does and for the engagement with the Government on child poverty. We had a very good meeting, I thought, where we talked about the work of the Big Issue and the rightful challenge to the Government to ensure that the structure within government and the measurement of our objectives meet the challenge that has been set here. I will talk about how we will ensure that this happens.

I am proud that this Government have now published our child poverty strategy, going far beyond rhetoric—as one noble Lord suggested that we should do. But I do not agree with those who have argued that all Governments are the same or that the strategy lacks credibility. Several noble Lords have quoted the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Its annual poverty report, published yesterday, states that the child poverty strategy is “hugely welcome”—particularly after the last Government made no progress in reducing poverty. The foundation welcomes the child poverty strategy delivering the projected biggest reduction in child poverty in a single Parliament.

We have been clear that our wide-ranging child poverty strategy will see the largest reduction in child poverty by any Government in a single Parliament, lifting 550,000 children out of poverty, principally through the expansion of free school meals and removing the two-child limit. These are both things that this Government have already done—to take up the challenge set by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. But, of course, we need to measure and demonstrate progress being made on this strategy.

I completely take on board that challenge. That is why the monitoring and evaluation framework, which was published alongside the strategy, set out that a baseline report will be published in summer 2026, with annual reporting on progress thereafter. It will be quite clear what progress the Government are making in a range of areas, and it will be possible to hold this Government to account for delivering on this crucial strategy and on our objectives. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that it will be very clear to voters that this Government will make progress, as the previous Labour Government did, in tackling the scourge of child poverty.

We recognise that our approach to monitoring and evaluation will need to evolve and adapt, as the strategy must, reflecting the dynamic nature of poverty and the broader social and economic factors that influence it. Although I understand the powerful point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, about the government machinery for ensuring progress, I think a strength of the child poverty strategy is that it is explicitly cross-government. It recognises that it will need action in a range of different areas to tackle child poverty. I also take his point that there needs to be a central directing part of government. That is why we have committed to maintain a child poverty team with cross-government oversight by Ministers.

These clear reporting arrangements and the focus on child poverty within government show our commitment and leadership and will ensure that the progress that we make is transparent to all. We will continue to work closely with the whole sector committed to tackling child poverty, as we have done in developing the strategy. We believe that this is the best approach, rather than introducing statutory targets. For these reasons, I hope I have provided some assurance about the commitment of this Government, the broad action that we will take as a result of the strategy, and the measurement and evaluation that we will put in place in order to ensure that the public and this House can hold us to account for progress. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

Thank you very much. I have decided to join the Conservative Party. Can I meet the noble Earl afterwards and fill in the forms? Forgive me, I was only joking. I have never received such praise in the House.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I was trying to say that we need a new toolkit to dismantle poverty. Having a way of measuring it and of taking people to task because we say, “This is what you said you would achieve” can never be, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, the be-all and end-all. It must be part of the road towards the accumulation of evidence, the accumulation of opportunity and the accumulation of thinking that gets us somewhere we have never been before.

I do not want to pooh-pooh the Government or any Government for achieving the remarkable removal of 450,000 young people from poverty, but what about the other 4 million? That is the real problem. The real problem is that we are passing from generation to generation. A load of people who I have identified— 90% of the people I work with in homelessness, 90% of the people I work with in long-term unemployment, and 90% of the people I work with in the custodial system—come from the inheritance of poverty. They inherit poverty in the same way that Boris Johnson or David Cameron or anybody else inherits their position in the pecking order. If we have a situation where we have millions of people never arriving at the starting line of life, we have a major problem. That is where we need to concentrate our energy.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

111: After Clause 29, insert the following new Clause—
“Free school meals etc: information sharing(1) Section 110 of the Education Act 2005 (supply of information) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (4), after “local authority” insert “or the appropriate authority of a relevant school in England”(3) In subsection (5)—(a) at the end of paragraph (a), omit “or”;(b) at the end of paragraph (b), insert“or(c) to the appropriate authority of a relevant school in England,”.(4) After subsection (5) insert—“(5A) Information to which subsection (1) or (2) applies may be supplied to the Secretary of State, or any person providing services to the Secretary of State, for use for the purpose of determining whether relevant financial assistance is payable or expendable in respect of a person in England.(5B) Information to which subsection (2) applies may be supplied to a local authority in England or the appropriate authority of a relevant school in England for use for the purpose mentioned in subsection (5A).(5C) Information received by virtue of subsection (5A) may be supplied—(a) to another person to whom it could have been supplied under that subsection,(b) to a local authority in England, or(c) to the appropriate authority of a relevant school in England,for use for the purpose mentioned in subsection (5A). (5D) A person who (after receiving information by virtue of this section) makes a determination described in subsection (3) or (5A) in respect of a person in England may communicate the determination to—(a) a parent of the person in respect of whom the determination was made,(b) a local authority in England, or(c) the appropriate authority of a relevant school in England.(5E) The communication may include information about the statutory provision or the arrangements under which the person in respect of whom the determination is made is eligible for free school lunches.”(5) After subsection (6), insert—“(6A) The references in this section to a local authority in England include references to any person exercising on behalf of such an authority functions relating to eligibility for free school lunches and milk or relating to relevant financial assistance.”(6) For subsections (7) and (8) substitute—“(7) For the purposes of this section, determining “eligibility for free school lunches and milk” means determining—(a) whether school lunches or milk must be provided for a person, free of charge and on request, in accordance with—(i) section 512ZB(2) or (3) of the Education Act 1996,(ii) regulations under section 342 of that Act (non- maintained special schools), or(iii) Academy arrangements;(b) whether school lunches or milk may or must be provided for a person, free of charge, by a local authority in England or the appropriate authority of a relevant school in England in accordance with one or both of the following—(i) the terms of relevant financial assistance;(ii) guidance issued by the Secretary of State.(8) The reference to school lunch in subsection (7)(b) includes food equivalent to a school lunch provided for a person educated otherwise than at school.(8A) In this section—“the appropriate authority” means—(a) in relation to a community, foundation or voluntary school or a community or foundation special school, the governing body;(b) in relation to a pupil referral unit, the local authority which maintains the unit;(c) in relation to any other kind of relevant school, the proprietor;“functions relating to social security” includes functions relating to Part 6 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999;“relevant financial assistance” means financial assistance given under section 14 of the Education Act 2002—(a) to a local authority in England or the appropriate authority of a relevant school in England, and(b) in connection with child welfare or the provision of education;“relevant school” means—(a) an Academy school,(b) an alternative provision Academy,(c) a community, foundation or voluntary school,(d) a community or foundation special school,(e) a non-maintained special school (within the meaning given by section 337A of the Education Act 1996), (f) a pupil referral unit, or(g) a city technology college or city college for the technology of the arts;“school lunch” has the same meaning as in section 512 of the Education Act 1996.””Member’s explanatory statement
This clause would amend section 110 of the Education Act 2005 to allow for information to be shared in order to identify persons who are eligible for free school meals, or are intended beneficiaries of financial assistance given to local authorities and schools under the Education Act 2002.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, we have listened with interest to the valuable contributions during this debate, and we thank all noble Lords who have both spoken to and tabled amendments in this group.

Amendment 114, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, seeks to fulfil the Government’s commitment to lowering the cost of school uniforms, but by a monetary cap rather than a limit on branded items. The principle of focusing on the actual cost to families, rather than on the number of branded items, underlines His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition’s support for both this amendment and for Amendment 117 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton. Both these amendments seek to address the real issue at the centre of the Government’s concern: bringing down the cost of school uniforms.

It surely makes sense that items provided or loaned free of charge to a pupil should be excluded from the restriction on branded items, on the basis that this imposes no financial burden on families and gives schools greater flexibility, while acknowledging that they already try to help pupils where possible.

I turn to Amendment 118 from the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, which seeks to extend the VAT zero rating for certain items of pupils’ school uniform to the age of 16. As was noted in Committee, children’s clothing and footwear designed for children under 14 years of age already attracts a zero rate of VAT if they meet specific conditions. We would therefore be grateful to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to address the issue of raising the zero VAT threshold from 14 to 16, which would address noble Lords’ concerns.

Amendment 119, in the name of my noble kinswoman Lady Boycott, seeks to prohibit school uniform items which contain PFAS chemicals. Amendment 119A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, similarly requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the health implications of school uniforms. While existing guidance asks schools to consider sustainability and ethical supply chains, my noble kinswoman is entirely correct: we must also consider health concerns. We look forward to hearing from the Minister about what work the Government will commit to when undertaking these many important issues.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, it seems appropriate to follow the debate on child poverty with a debate about the action this Government are taking to cut costs for families—in this case, our commitment to cutting the cost of school uniforms for families by limiting the number of branded items that schools can require pupils to have. This will give parents the flexibility to buy more items from a range of retailers, including high street retailers, and to make spending decisions that suit their circumstances.

Turning to the specifics of the amendments, Amendment 117, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, would exclude from the limit on branded uniform items which have been loaned or provided free of charge to pupils. It would allow schools to require pupils to wear more than three branded items of uniform—or more than four where a secondary school includes a branded tie—provided that parents do not have to pay for them. I appreciate the issues and concerns underpinning this amendment, particularly the need to preserve schools’ ability to lend or give branded uniform, or the ability to accept loans or gifts of sports equipment, but it is not necessary.

Following my letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on this matter, I wrote to Peers highlighting the recent draft statutory guidance, confirming that optional items are excluded from the limit. Schools may still sell, loan, or provide additional branded items, provided that wearing them is optional. For example, schools will still be able to loan or provide a specific kit for inter-school sports competitions, as many already do. However, schools should not require pupils to wear branded items for activities unless they count towards the limit. If a pupil cannot or does not wish to wear a loaned branded item, schools should allow a suitable alternative such as a plain sports shirt in a similar colour, or another branded item already part of their PE kit or uniform.

Speaking as the former goalkeeper of the Dyson Perrins CofE Academy hockey team, and goal attack of the netball team, I think I would have been perfectly able to recognise my team, even if one or two of them had been wearing a school-coloured plain shirt rather than the PE kit that had been loaned to them.

I am not sure that it is the disastrous impact that noble Lords here are suggesting, but what is disastrous is where the cost of uniform becomes a barrier to participation at school, including in extracurricular activities. As the noble Lord said, the limit applies only to items required by schools and not external bodies. Our guidance clarifies that Scouts and cadet force uniforms are not captured. As I explained in Committee, we want clarity for parents. This amendment risks confusion about whether a compulsory branded item counts towards the statutory limit, depending on how it was obtained. There is also a risk that, if schools become overly reliant on loaning out key elements of uniform, parents may fear being charged for expensive replacements if those items are lost or damaged.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

120: Clause 31, page 55, line 2, at end insert “; or has taken such action during the period of five years ending with the date on which an application is made under subsection (6).”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that a parent must obtain local authority consent to withdraw their child from school if the authority has taken action under section 47(8) of the Children Act 1989 at any time during the period of 5 years prior to the application.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, before I turn to the groups concerning home education, I thank noble Lords for the thoughtful contributions made in Committee and those who have engaged since then in detailed discussions with my department. I want to reiterate that most families who choose to home-educate do so with their child’s best interests at heart. They do not present safeguarding concerns, and it is not the Government’s intention to place unnecessary burdens on them.

However, we must face the reality that some children are in unsafe or unsuitable education and, unlike children in school, they can lack regular contact with adults who can safeguard and support them. These measures seek to strike the right balance between recognising parents’ right to home-educate while ensuring that vulnerable children do not slip through the cracks. They follow repeated attempts by the previous Government and others to legislate for children not in school registers. Of course, new evidence recently has come to light that further underlines the need for appropriate information sharing, earlier identification of children’s needs and stronger safeguards for home-educated children.

The local child safeguarding practice review into the tragic death of Sara Sharif, the NSPCC’s Tipping Point report, and Ofsted and CQC’s thematic review into children not in school all underline the need for more touchpoints for children who are currently being home-educated or children in school who may become home-educated in future. In reflecting on the findings of the Sara Sharif review, it is important to be clear that, while home education was relevant to Sara’s visibility to agencies, her death was caused by the actions of her father, not by her being home-educated. The review identified serious system-level failures across multiple agencies. That is why the Bill contains a broader set of reforms to strengthen multi-agency practice, improve information sharing and enhance professional oversight and decision-making across children’s social care.

The children not in school provisions and the amendments that we are tabling in response to the review serve a distinct and more targeted purpose. They are designed to provide proportionate safeguards at the specific points where children can become less visible to professionals, without replicating or expanding the child protection system. These measures will help to ensure that children who may benefit from early help or additional support are not overlooked, while maintaining protections for family privacy and parental choice.

Our government amendments improve safeguards for vulnerable children, cut red tape in relation to children not in school registers and strengthen the support offer for home-educating parents. Statutory guidance will provide greater reassurance on data protection and explain the routes of complaint and appeal for parents.

Government Amendment 120 would extend the consent requirement to parents of children who have been on child protection plans in the last five years. It is important to remember that child protection plans are not entered into lightly. They are reserved for those children who are suffering or at risk of significant harm, and for whom urgent, co-ordinated action is needed to keep them safe.

Children do come off child protection plans. With the right support, family circumstances can stabilise, risks can reduce and families can make meaningful, sustained change. I commend those parents who work constructively with support from social care services. Their commitment is often what makes it possible for child protection plans to be discharged. But many families who come off child protection plans need ongoing support to sustain progress. Removing a child from school for home education could be destabilising and make them vulnerable to harm again. That is why we have tabled this amendment: to provide an additional check for children who have recently come off plans, checking that their progress can be sustained if they move into home education.

Government Amendments 165, 169 and 172 would allow local authorities to require school attendance, where it is in a child’s best interests, for children who have been on a child protection plan in the last five years. School is not only a place where a child can receive a suitable full-time education. For some children it is also a protective space—somewhere they are guaranteed access to pastoral support and adults outside the home. For children who are experiencing or are at risk of significant harm, it can be in their best interests to attend school for this reason.

Given the potential for children who have recently been discharged from plans to become vulnerable to harm again without continuing support and engagement, it is right that we extend the power for local authorities to require these children to attend school via the school attendance order process if it would be in the child’s best interests to do so. Crucially, my Amendment 172 would ensure that any school attendance order made on these grounds must be revoked once the five-year period has passed, provided that there is no current child protection plan or Section 47 inquiry.

Government Amendments 125 and 126 would provide for a pilot scheme in selected areas under which local authorities must meet with parents wishing to withdraw their child from school for home education. Any decision to introduce these meetings nationally following the pilot would be subject to affirmative regulations and a consultation.

The review into the death of Sara Sharif recommended that a meeting take place before children about whom there are concerns are removed from school, as a way of preventing children who are being harmed from slipping under the radar. Our amendments also look to address the separate concerns that have been raised in both Houses about families who are driven to home education because they feel that their child’s needs are not being met in school. No parent should find themselves in that position.

If parents choose to home-educate, it should be an informed decision made with a clear understanding of the alternatives, the commitments involved and the support available from their local authority. These meetings are intended to help parents in their decision-making process as well as to identify children who may need support.

In pilot areas, before their child’s name is removed from the school roll, parents wishing to home-educate their child would be required to attend a meeting with the local authority. The meeting would cover their reasons for wishing to home-educate; the responsibilities of local authorities and parents in relation to home education; how the parent plans to secure a suitable full-time education for their child; safeguarding and welfare; any support needs the child may have and how these could be met; and anything else relevant to the parent’s decision to withdraw the child for home education.

Children will be required to attend the meeting with their parents unless exceptional circumstances apply. It is important that children have opportunities to express their views, and this meeting would provide one such opportunity. Statutory guidance would set out circumstances in which attendance may not be appropriate.

Unless a parent requires permission from the local authority to home-educate their child—such as when their child is on a child protection plan—and that permission is declined, the child’s name must be deleted from the school roll after the meeting has concluded. The child will then be added to the local authority’s children not in school register and the authority will record the outcome of the meeting. If the local authority has concerns based on the meeting, these should be followed up.

We expect that many parents would welcome these meetings as a constructive starting point with their local authority, but recognise that some may feel anxious about this requirement. That is why this amendment requires a pilot scheme and not an immediate national rollout. We want to be confident that these meetings would deliver clear benefits for children and families.

To provide further reassurance, the amendment will place clear limits on the pilot: it must be introduced within two years of the section containing the pilot and consent measure coming into force; it must run for only two to five years; and it may involve no more than 30% of local authorities in England or Wales. Further details on the pilot will be set out in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure and in statutory guidance, which will be informed by a consultation.

Government Amendment 131 would require local authorities to assess a child’s home environment within 15 days of them becoming registered on their children not in school register, and to consider the other settings where the child is being educated, of which the local authority is aware, within 15 days of recording this information on their registers. As part of this new requirement, local authorities will be empowered to visit the child in their home.

This responds directly to a recommendation from the review into the death of Sara Sharif, which made clear the importance of setting a clear expectation that local authorities consider the suitability of a child’s home environment as soon as possible after withdrawal from school. The most straightforward way for a local authority to meet this requirement is to visit the family in their home at the point of registration. For many families, a visit from their elective home education officer is already a routine part of an annual check-in.

As local authorities will be required to consider the child’s home and empowered to request a home visit, we have also tabled Amendment 134, which requires registers to hold information about any address that a registered child lives at in addition to their primary home. This amendment is intended to address circumstances where a child has more than one residence—for example, where they reside with each separated parent.

Government Amendment 145 would allow the outcomes of any home visits or considerations of the child’s home and education settings to be prescribed for inclusion in children not in school registers. If local authorities are required to actively consider these environments, it is important that the conclusions that they have drawn are recorded. This would ensure an audit trail of any concerns and the steps taken in response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I shall start, where the noble Lord, Lord Storey, finished in recognising the work of Lord Soley, who devoted many years to this issue. I hope somewhere, in his retirement, he is aware of what is happening here.

As we have discussed previously, there are at least three groups of families who educate their children at home: those who do so for philosophical reasons, where they make a positive choice; those who feel their children are struggling at school—many of whom, as we heard from my noble friend Lady Shephard, have special needs—and may not have chosen home education but believe it is in their best interests; and those whose children are faced with exclusion from school or other issues, where we are right to have concerns about their safety. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, whom I genuinely have huge respect for—I am grateful for the collaborative way he has worked on this Bill across the House—talked about serious case reviews, but two-thirds of serious case reviews are of children of preschool age, so we are not comparing apples with apples.

The Government have introduced some very serious, albeit belated, and positive amendments, partly in response to the recommendations from the review of the death of Sara Sharif. Again, like the noble Lord, Lord Storey, we welcome government Amendments 125 and 131 in particular, which would pilot holding a meeting with parents before removing a child from school and giving the option of a visit within 15 days of a child starting home education. But in principle, we support almost all the government amendments in this group.

However, government Amendments 120 and 131 leave material gaps, which I believe we have a duty to close. I was very fortunate to meet recently the authors of the Sara Sharif serious case review, Russell Wate and Jane Wonnacott, in their capacity as independent experts in this area. My revised amendments to Clauses 31 and 32 stem largely from that conversation and might have made a difference in her case but also in many others. The national Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel report looked at the cases of 41 home-educated children, six of whom died and 35 of whom suffered serious harm. Of this group, half had never been to school and just over half had no agency involvement at the time. So, not all these children were visible.

We need to be able to talk about this group of children without in any way casting aspersions on the good intentions, commitment and efforts of parents who are bringing up their children by educating them at home who are not at risk. But we do need to learn lessons from these reviews. That is why we write them. And we have to have a proportionate approach to the risk those children face.

I am grateful to the other noble Lords who have signed my Amendment 121A, but I also point out to the House that it has the support of the Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza. Amendment 121A would tighten up the conditions that will give the local authority the ability to withhold consent for a child to be electively home-educated; in contrast, as we heard, the government amendment would be limited to a child who had been on a child protection register within the last five years. My amendment would include children who have ever been subject to care proceedings, whether or not they resulted in a care order.

As my noble friend Lady Spielman said—or perhaps it was the noble Lord, Lord Meston, or both—care proceedings are a serious move on the part of the state. In Sara’s case, two care orders were applied for in her short life; neither was successful. Amendment 121A would also include children who have ever been subject to child protection inquiries or placed on the child protection register. Again, in Sara’s case, she was only on a child protection plan at birth, so the Government’s amendment would have made no difference in her case.

Perhaps most importantly, the government amendments currently include children who are defined as a child in need under Section 17 of the Children Act. The Government have already included within Section 17 those children who are in a special school because of their special educational needs and disabilities, but they have expressly excluded children who under Section 17 are a child in need because of abuse or neglect. The department’s own data recently showed there are almost 30,000 children categorised as children in need who are suffering child sexual abuse and a further 12,000 who are sexually exploited. So, the bar for what is a child in need has moved up and up with the pressures that we have seen on the child protection system, and I really hope that the Minister, when she comes to reply, will address that point, because it makes me anxious, with my experience in child protection. These children are under much less scrutiny than the child who is on a plan. They are the more vulnerable children, and I think they need to be included in this group.

When I met with officials, they argued that the Government’s reforms would mean that all those children who are sexually exploited or sexually abused would now be on a child protection plan, but I would rather err on the side of caution and make sure that we capture them in this.

I entirely accept the point from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, regarding adoption; that was an oversight in the drafting of my amendment. But let us be clear: the consequence is that a child has to go to school; the consequence is not endless involvement of a local authority in a family’s life. The child goes to school—something which the vast majority of children in this country do.

My Amendment 131A has perhaps been slightly misunderstood. It

“would require the local authority to conduct a home visit where a child has ever been subject to care proceedings, named in a child protection plan”—

not, as was suggested, if there have been investigations that might be malicious—

“or is currently classified as a child in need”.

The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, is right. For some children, home is a safe space, but for too many children, home is the exact opposite, and we need to walk over the threshold on behalf of those children.

I accept there have been concerns about my Amendment 121B, and I would not want to do anything that would put victims of domestic abuse at further risk. I hope the Government can come back with something that is workable there.

Anyone who has worked in child protection will know that the line between the child who dies or is seriously harmed and the child who survives is a very, very fine line; it might come down to the school or the neighbours or the bus driver or somebody noticing something and acting. So, what my amendments aim to do is to cast the net in a proportionate way that would drive professional curiosity on the part of local authority staff but allow us to identify those children who are at risk of suffering neglect or abuse if they are taken out of school and become invisible. I hope the Minister will be able to address those points.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I will focus on the detail of the amendments in this group, rather than on some of the broader arguments made by noble Lords. Both on Second Reading and in Committee, we have talked about home education issues at considerable length.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

Is the Minister saying that when a local authority has just granted authority to parents to take responsibility for life for what are difficult children with trauma in their background, fairly soon afterwards you are going to second-guess them about how they should do education? The Minister may say that it should be done softly, but essentially that is what she is saying—that she is going to make them jump through yet another hoop.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that these are children who, almost by definition, will have gone through difficult and traumatic circumstances. Therefore, the opportunity within that five-year period to have the process for ensuring that they would not be better served by staying at school would serve those children well. I was about to say that, of course, those parents will already be well known to the local authority, and we would expect those checks to be relatively quick because the relevant information and relationship with the parents is already built.

On Amendment 121A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I thank the noble Baroness as well as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and others for their constructive engagement last week. They have referenced the meeting they had with my officials on the detail of their amendment; of course, it was also with Steve Crocker, the non-executive board member for the department and former president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, and the DCS in Hampshire. The amendment would seek to extend the requirement to get permission to withdraw a child from school to home-educate them to a much broader group of children, including all children who are or who have ever been the subject of a child protection inquiry or child protection plan; those who are or have ever been the subject of proceedings relating to supervision or care orders; and those who are currently receiving support and services as a child in need under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989.

We tabled our amendment to extend the requirement to children who have recently been discharged from child protection plans because we felt that five years was a reasonable period in which to expect a family to show sustainable change. Extending the timeframe to consider all children previously subject to a child protection inquiry or plan, and including those who have been subject to proceedings or are currently receiving support from children’s social care, risks discouraging families from agreeing to accept support and services early or may lead to them withdrawing from this support, if consent from the local authority is required to home-educate.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester called this amendment a nuanced approach. Well, it is not a nuanced approach because it aims to use this specific consent provision to solve much wider issues within the Bill and goes far beyond, in terms of the breadth of children it would encompass, those included by the Government’s amendment. It is exactly the opposite of what we want to achieve through the Families First Partnership programme, whereby we want to broaden the group that come forward for help at the earliest possible opportunity.

Noble Lords have rightly expressed their concern about the children who fall through the cracks in the system, and that is why we are fixing the system that safeguards and protects children and investing £2.4 billion in rolling out the Families First Partnership programme. It is why we are developing multi-agency child protection teams in every local area and legislating for better information sharing and a stronger role for education and childcare settings in local safeguarding arrangements. These measures are designed to identify and support more quickly children who need help and protection.

The noble Lord, Lord Storey, touched on the fact that this amendment would capture every parent whose child has ever been the subject of a child protection inquiry who wishes to remove that child from school. Let us not forget that a Section 47 inquiry is a significant event for a family—an intrusion into family life without consent. I know we all agree that this is the right thing to protect children from harm where it is needed, but last year alone just under 200,000 children aged between five and 15 were the subject of an inquiry. While I recognise that only a small number of these parents will want to home-educate, it would be both a significant undertaking for a local authority and a significant additional intrusion for those parents where concerns were not substantiated and no further action was taken.

On broadening the consent measure to include children where supervision or care proceedings are or have been initiated, once again it is a significant undertaking for the local authority to seek court intervention in family life. In these circumstances, the local authority should and will be assessing the safety and well-being of the children. Most of these children will have been on child protection plans before proceedings are initiated, so they will already be within the consent measure. Where proceedings are historic and there are still safeguarding concerns, these children should be being picked up through existing safeguarding mechanisms such as those already captured by the existing consent requirements. The question we need to ask ourselves is whether this is a proportionate approach. I understand the concern to mitigate risk at every possible occasion, but we also need to recognise that this is not the appropriate tool to use, given that this Bill is about improving the whole of the system much more radically.

Amendment 131A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would require local authorities to visit the child’s home environment for certain groups of children. Amendment 131 already provides sufficient safeguards by allowing local authorities to consider the child’s home and other education settings and to request a visit to meet the child. Local authorities should already be undertaking home visits as part of their regular oversight of children subject to child protection inquiries or plans, children on child in need plans, and those involved in care or supervision proceedings. The statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, is very clear. It is part of their duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children in their area; this would include visiting children who need help, support or protection, and we will also clarify in statutory guidance on the registers that these children should be prioritised for visits at the point of registration.

Amendment 121B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to ensure that the views of all parents of the child are considered as part of the local authority’s decision to grant permission for a child to be removed from school for home education. In most cases, we would expect local authorities to seek the views of all parents when they are considering whether to grant consent. However, there will be situations where doing so would be inappropriate. I think we can imagine what some of those might be. Of course, requiring the local authority to consult all of those with parental responsibility could delay a consent decision in circumstances where, for example, estranged parents are hard to reach. We will make this clear in statutory guidance.

Amendment 122, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, would require a court to confirm the local authority’s assessment that it is in the child’s best interest to receive education by regular attendance at school. We believe that local authorities will be well placed to make these decisions, as they will be aware of the child’s circumstances and can draw on multi-agency expertise, as well as parental views, in their decision-making. Introducing a requirement for court confirmation would add unnecessary delays.

Amendment 123, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to require a local authority to provide a statement of reasons if it refuses to grant permission for a child at a special school to be home-educated. I wholly agree that it is right for reasons to be provided, and we intend to make this clear in statutory guidance, which we will consult on. In that consultation, we will also consider to what extent a local authority’s reasons for a decision should include the costs and benefits to the child of permission being granted or refused.

Amendment 124, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, seeks to ensure that the process by which parents can appeal a consent decision made by a local authority is transparent and fair. The first proposed new subsection in this amendment makes many sensible suggestions but I do not think it is necessary to place this level of detail in the Bill. I wrote to noble Lords earlier this month outlining the department’s intention to provide more in-depth guidance on the appeals process, which will include target timelines and examples of the type of evidence that may be submitted. I am afraid that I do not agree with the second proposed new subsection. The tribunal process can be lengthy and these types of cases do not fall within the current remit of the Local Government Ombudsman. The appeals process proposed in the Bill is uncomplicated, objective and will be the most efficient route for parents to get a final decision.

Amendment 125A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, seeks to amend the provisions of government Amendment 125 to establish a pilot scheme of mandatory meetings. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the intention that lies behind his amendment. The Government’s amendment places a clear requirement on local authorities to record the outcome of these meetings. Should this provision be accepted, statutory guidance will make explicit that the record must include any concerns that parents express about schools, as well as actions taken by the authority in response. As part of the pilot, we intend to gather this information so that we can understand how it is being used and how it might drive improvements across the system—this is a call made by other noble Lords as well—so we can get a better understanding of why, as was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, parents are withdrawing their children from school.

Amendments 164B, 164C and 167A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to give discretion or place limitations on when local authorities may issue preliminary notices or school attendance orders. The department agrees that it is important that local authorities work to foster positive relations with home-educating families, which is why the Bill introduces a support duty. We have tabled an amendment to require local authorities to offer home-educating parents a biannual forum to discuss any concerns or issues. However, if a child is in potentially unsuitable education or education that is not in their best interest, action must be taken without delay.

Amendments 170A and 170B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to place limitations on when a local authority can request a home visit when considering whether a school attendance order should be served. By this stage of the school attendance order process, a local authority will already have used informal inquiries and a preliminary notice to the parent to obtain information about the child’s education. A parent will therefore have had several opportunities to satisfy the local authority that their child is in receipt of a suitable education. Requiring a local authority to obtain a court order to conduct a visit would not be an appropriate use of the court’s time and could prolong the time a child spends receiving an unsuitable education. We will use statutory guidance to help local authorities sensitively conduct these visits and we are developing a training package for local authorities focusing on their new duties.

Amendment 175ZD, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, is unnecessary because Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 is clear that education otherwise than at school is a legitimate choice for parents—incidentally, a point that has been made by the Government throughout the whole of this debate and consideration of the Bill.

Amendment 175ZE, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to require the Secretary of State to issue a code of conduct in respect of attendance. There is already statutory guidance that sets out in detail the roles and responsibilities for all the institutions and persons listed in this amendment in relation to improving school attendance. The department published the Working Together to Improve School Attendance guidance in 2022, following full public consultation, and it was updated less than 18 months ago in August 2024.

This has been a wide-ranging group of amendments, but I hope that I have addressed noble Lords’ concerns. I commend the government amendments, particularly government Amendment 120.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, I am slightly disappointed that she did not comment on something that I would like to hear from her. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for whom I have enormous admiration—particularly as he was very kind about Mossbourne just now—said that there are plenty of schools like the one in episode two of “Adolescence”. It really bugs me that, although “Adolescence” is an extraordinary piece of drama, it is now being taken as a documentary. It is a dystopian view of schools. Will the Minister assure the House that there are not plenty of schools like in episode two of “Adolescence”?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

125: Clause 31, page 57, line 2, at end insert—
“434B Mandatory local authority meetings prior to withdrawal of child from school(1) The appropriate national authority must, by regulations made before the end of the relevant period, make a scheme (“a pilot scheme”) to provide—(a) that the parent of a child must attend and participate in a meeting with the local authority responsible for the child if the parent intends—(i) that the child should cease to attend the school at which the child is a registered pupil, and(ii) to withdraw the child from school for the purpose of causing the child to receive education otherwise than at a school,(b) that the local authority must ensure that the following matters are discussed with the parent during the meeting—(i) the duty of parents under section 7 and how the parent plans to meet this duty;(ii) the duties of the local authority, including the support duty under section 436G;(iii) the parent’s reasons for considering that the child should receive education otherwise than at school;(iv) any support needs that the child may have and how those needs could be met;(v) the safeguarding and welfare of the child;(vi) anything else relevant to the decision to withdraw the child from school,(c) that the child must attend the meeting unless exceptional circumstances apply,(d) that a representative of the school at which the child is a registered pupil must attend the meeting if the parent consents to the representative’s attendance,(e) that the proprietor of a school must not allow the deletion from the school’s register of the name of the child unless the proprietor receives notice from the local authority that the meeting has taken place in respect of the child, and(f) that the local authority must record the outcome of the meeting or whether the meeting was refused.(2) The “relevant period” is the period of two years beginning with the day on which section 31 of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 comes fully into force.(3) The regulations must also specify—(a) the local authorities in respect of which the pilot scheme will operate, and(b) the period for which the scheme has effect.(4) The number of local authorities specified under subsection (3)(a) must not exceed 30 per cent of all local authorities in England or 30 per cent of all local authorities in Wales as the case may be.(5) The period specified under subsection (3)(b) must not be less than two years and must not exceed five years.(6) The regulations may provide for exemptions from the pilot scheme in respect of descriptions of children as specified in the regulations. (7) The regulations may make provision for, or in connection with, any arrangements that the appropriate national authority considers are required to ensure that the pilot scheme can operate.(8) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (7) includes—(a) provision modifying or amending the pilot scheme for the purpose of ensuring that the scheme can operate in relation to children falling within section 434A;(b) provision modifying or amending section 434A for the purpose of ensuring that the pilot scheme can operate in relation to children falling within that section.(9) Subject to subsection (10), the appropriate national authority may by regulations—(a) make provision to end the pilot scheme;(b) provide that the provisions mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (1) have effect, after the expiry of the pilot scheme, in relation to all local authorities, subject to any exemptions for descriptions of children as specified in the regulations;(c) amend section 434A for the purpose of ensuring that the grant of local authority consent to withdraw a child from school under that section is conditional on the parent of that child attending and participating in a meeting with the local authority responsible for the child, as described in paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (1), subject to any exemptions for descriptions of children as specified in the regulations;(d) make provision for, or in connection with, any arrangements that the appropriate national authority considers are required to ensure that any provision made under paragraphs (a) to (c) can operate.(10) Regulations under subsection (9) may be made only after the pilot scheme has operated for a period of no less than 2 years.(11) Before making any regulations under this section, the appropriate national authority must consult such persons as the appropriate national authority considers appropriate.(12) In this section “appropriate national authority” means—(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State;(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers.(13) If a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section would, apart from this subsection, be treated for the purposes of the standing orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, it is to proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow regulations to make pilot schemes requiring parents who wish to withdraw their children from school to attend mandatory meetings with the local authority. Regulations may also extend the provisions to all local authorities, following the end of the pilot scheme and a consultation.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I beg to move.

Amendment 125A (to Amendment 125) not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

126: Clause 31, page 57, line 2, at end insert—
“(2) In section 569(2A) of the Education Act 1996, after “section” insert “434B”.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my other amendment of clause 31, page 57, line 2 and will ensure that regulations made under the provision inserted by that amendment will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The Minister always says warm and wise words—well, some of the time.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend Lady Blake is responding.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

128: Clause 32, page 57, line 23, leave out from beginning to “, or” in line 24 and insert “a child receiving full-time education at a relevant school would normally be expected to attend”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify the intention that section 436B(5)(b)(ii) of the Education Act 1996, as inserted by clause 32, refers to a comparator child in full-time education.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

131: Clause 32, page 58, line 12, at end insert—
“(8) Before the end of the period of 15 days beginning with the day on which the local authority registers a child under this section, the local authority—(a) must consider where the child lives, and(b) may request the child's parent to allow the local authority to visit the child inside any of the homes in which the child lives.(9) If a request under subsection (8)(b) is refused by the person to whom it is made, the local authority must consider that to be a relevant factor in determining whether to serve a preliminary notice under section 436H.(10) Before the end of the period of 15 days beginning with the day on which the local authority includes in the register the information mentioned in section 436C(1)(e) in respect of a child, the local authority must consider the settings where the child is being educated that the local authority knows about.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide a new duty for local authorities to consider the child’s home and education settings, and a power to request a home visit, soon after registration under section 436B (as inserted by clause 32).

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I am not going to divide the House on Amendment 131A, although I feel I ought to, but I would be grateful if the Minister could agree to write to me, and put a copy in the Library, explaining what the purpose of Amendment 131 is, because my amendment would have brought absolute clarity as to which children and which homes would receive a home visit. She said that children to whom Section 47 applied would get a home visit anyway, but the implication was that those other groups of children would not. It would be helpful to know how the Government are planning to give clarity to local authorities. At a high level, what will the guidance say? Are there powers that the Government are taking within the Bill that would allow them to introduce something like my amendment in future if it appeared to be necessary? If she could commit to write, I would be very grateful.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am happy to commit to write and respond to those questions.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

133: Clause 32, page 58, line 16, at end insert “, and if the child has lived at their current address for less than 12 months, their previous address”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the register also contains the previous address of the child where they have lived at their current address for less than 12 months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, my amendments in this group pull in two slightly different directions. If the Minister and her officials are confused, I apologise, but I will try to explain why.

The main thrust of my amendments, as the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Hacking, both said, is to try to simplify the amount of specific detail required to be held on the register in future. I too very much welcome the Government’s decision to simplify a lot of the information that was in the original draft of the Bill and to leave a bit more room for professional curiosity on the part of the home education team in the local authority. My Amendments 135A, 135B and 146A all point in this direction and give the Government different options—a pick-and-mix menu to achieve this end. Amendment 146B would make it clear that a local authority can request further information where it believes that a child might not be receiving a suitable education or that their welfare may be at risk.

In the other direction is my Amendment 143B— I hope the Minister will be able to address this specifically when she sums up—which would establish a duty to record information relating to care proceedings. I think that is missing from the current list, but the Minister will tell me whether I am right or wrong on that. This would include information relating not just to the child but to their siblings. We are all aware of cases where siblings or half-siblings are in care proceedings, perhaps if they are babies or under five, but an older child might not be. It feels highly relevant, if a child is going to be taken out of school, that the local authority has that level of concern about other children in the family. I hope the Minister feels able to accept that and perhaps bring back a government amendment at Third Reading.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, as noble Lords have noted, the amendments in this group are all about how we reduce the burden on parents of providing information for children not in school registers while maintaining the purpose of those registers. As I said in the previous group, I have taken seriously noble Lords’ views that the provisions as drafted in the Bill were too onerous for parents. At the same time, it is important to remember that the system we are proposing is still incredibly light-touch relative to what is mandated in many other countries.

I turn to the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Hacking—134A, 139, 140 and 141—and Amendments 135A and 135B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. These would remove certain information requirements or replace them with more limited alternatives. It is essential that local authorities have the information they need to assess whether a child’s education is suitable and full-time. I fully appreciate the intention behind these amendments, but reducing the scope of information would, in practice, make those assessments significantly harder. It is also vital that safeguarding information and other relevant information on registers be recorded consistently. Recent safeguarding and serious case reviews have shown how often opportunities to identify children suffering or at risk of significant harm are missed when information is fragmented or incomplete.

However, I hope I can provide some reassurance to my noble friend Lord Hacking about access for parents in the sort of circumstances he identified. There are no powers for parents to access information on their children. We have thought this through very carefully, particularly from the perspective of victims of domestic abuse and other forms of abuse. For example, we have considered whether the estranged parent could make a subject access request to acquire information. Local authorities are strictly required to have clear and well-defined processes to help staff handle such requests safely and lawfully. We do not believe, therefore, that the fear my noble friend outlined, which is a quite understandable fear, could legally exist. I hope that provides some reassurance.

On the detail, Amendments 134A and 135A would require only the names and home addresses of the parents directly providing the education. Yet, as I said in Committee, Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 places the duty of securing a suitable education on all parents. If these amendments were accepted, we could face situations where no parent is recorded at all, making it harder for local authorities to identify and support children missing education.

Amendment 135A would also limit information for inclusion to the primary type of education, while Amendment 139 would require information on other providers only where they deliver the child’s principal education. In practice, this would not work because where education is from multiple sources, for example a parent and a tutor, there is no clear way of determining which is primary.

Amendments 135B, 140 and 141 would remove the requirement to record time spent in education and information concerning education received from those other than the parents. Yet this information may be precisely what allows local authorities to understand a child’s overall educational picture. If, for instance, a child spends substantial time with a provider offering a very narrow curriculum, the authority must check that they are receiving a balanced education elsewhere as a core part of assessing suitability.

Amendment 146B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, alongside Amendment 135A, seeks to clarify when further information may be requested. I appreciate the noble Baroness’s intention, but it would mean that the local authority may request further information only where it has reasonable cause to believe that a child may not be receiving a suitable education or their welfare may be at risk. Yet the purpose of the registers is to cover all children not in school and gather the information that enables authorities to form those very judgments. The information being sought might be exactly the information needed to make that judgment.

At this point I will respond to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on the group before last. On the point about annual reports, the high-level information required for registers is not intended to replace the more detailed informal inquiries that local authorities undertake—what the noble Lord refers to as the annual reporting system—to understand whether a child is receiving a suitable education. Should the amendment from the previous group be accepted, regulations could outline how the updates could be requested and statutory guidance would set out how these processes should align. On the point about whether parents ignore the annual request for meetings if the meeting has already happened, we will expect local authorities to adapt their systems in line with the new legislation. If there has recently been a meeting and the local authority is satisfied that the education is suitable, we would not expect it to request another soon afterwards. We will put this into statutory guidance.

Amendments 153A and 155A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would limit requests from local authorities for information, meetings or home visits, and prevent non-compliance being used as evidence of unsuitable education. The extensive package of government amendments to reduce the frequency of updates required from parents, which I will come to shortly, will address many of the noble Lord’s concerns. His amendments would also restrict home visits and meetings, when some parents welcome them as the easiest way to provide information. The suggestion that deregistration from school could be blocked by requiring a meeting is also misplaced. Children covered by new Sections 436B to 436G are already out of school and, if home-educated, already off the school roll. The amendments would give the Secretary of State new powers to penalise local authorities for breaching these limits. However, local authorities must already follow the law. The Education Act 1996 gives the Secretary of State sufficient powers to intervene when a local authority fails to comply.

Amendment 148E, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would prevent information on the registers being used to judge whether a child is at risk of harm or not receiving a suitable education. But local authorities must be able to use information on registers to make those assessments. Where information on registers indicates that a child may not be suitably educated or that safeguarding concerns exist and any informal inquiries have not resolved matters, authorities have a duty to act.

Amendment 146A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would prevent the Government prescribing additional categories of information for recording in future, even where necessary to improve understanding of this cohort, inform local and national policy, or better target support, including, for example, information on exam entries or outcomes for home-educated children, in which many noble Lords have expressed interest. Indeed, the noble Baroness’s own Amendment 143B shows the value of being able to add future categories, namely the details of care and supervision order applications, where we can see the logic of her argument. We would be happy to consider prescribing this information when developing regulations, and we will publicly consult on this.

Amendments 148A, 148B and 148D tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, concern the protection and retention of data on the registers. I appreciate the concern for the protection of children’s data, which of course I share, but these amendments are unnecessary. The registers will be required to comply with all applicable data protection legislation, which requires data not to be kept longer than necessary. Furthermore, entries on registers will be deleted once a child ceases to be within scope.

Amendment 174A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would remove Clause 34. Clause 34 enables information to be disclosed when required or authorised by children not in school measures without it breaching any obligation of confidence. This is important for local authorities to fulfil their duties, including sharing information where it promotes or safeguards a child’s education or welfare. The department continues to engage with the Information Commissioner’s Office to identify and mitigate any data-sharing risks.

Amendments 172A and 247A by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would require the National Cyber Security Centre to certify and test the security arrangements for registers before implementation. As I said in Committee, this is unnecessary. Local authorities are already expected to comply with cyber-security standards, which are an integral part of their wider data protection obligations. There will also not be a single national register but over 150 local registers across England and Wales. The National Cyber Security Centre’s role is advisory, not regulatory, so not only would requiring it to test and certify each register inappropriately widen its remit but it would be a colossal resource demand and unnecessarily delay implementation of these much-needed registers.

Amendment 161D, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would require local authorities to give written reasons for all decisions relating to the registers and to offer parents opportunities to correct inaccuracies. Local authorities will exercise discretion across a range of decisions, from adding information to the registers to seeking further details from education providers or determining what support to offer. It would be inappropriate to require written reasons in every case, particularly where safeguarding is involved. However, for support duty decisions we will make it clear in statutory guidance that written reasons should be provided. As for correcting factual errors, UK GDPR already gives parents the right to have inaccurate data rectified.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

136: Clause 32, page 58, leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert—
“(d) an estimate of the overall total amount of time that the child spends receiving education from parents of the child;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require a parent to provide an estimate of the overall amount of time, rather than the actual amount of time, that the child spends receiving education from their parents, for the purposes of the register of children not in school.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

138: Clause 32, page 58, leave out lines 22 to 27 and insert—
“(e) if a particular provider other than the child’s parent is providing education to the child for more than the prescribed amount of time—(i) the name and address of the provider;(ii) a description of the type of provider that it is;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and my amendment of clause 32 at page 60, line 33 would provide that the requirement to provide detailed information about education providers other than a parent will only apply if a provider is providing education that exceeds an amount of time specified in regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

142: Clause 32, page 58, line 32, at beginning insert “an estimate of”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require a parent to provide an estimate of the total amount of time, rather than the actual amount of time, that the child spends receiving education from a provider, for the purposes of the register of children not in school.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

145: Clause 32, page 60, line 3, at end insert—
“(la) whether the local authority exercised any of its functions under section 436B(8), (9) or (10), 436H(7A), (7B) or 436I(3) in relation to the child and the outcomes of any consideration of home and education settings or home visits conducted under those provisions;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow the outcomes of any home visits or consideration of the child’s home and education settings to be prescribed as information that may be included in the register of children not in school.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

147: Clause 32, page 60, leave out lines 21 and 22 and insert—
“(e) how amounts of time and estimates of amounts of time are to be calculated and recorded for the purposes of subsection (1)(d), (da) and (e)(iv);”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my other amendments of clause 32 at page 58, lines 20, 21, 32 and 33 and would ensure that regulations made under section 436C(4) of the Education Act 1996 (inserted by clause 32) can also make provision about how time estimates are to be calculated.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

149: Clause 32, page 61, line 5, after “436C(1)” insert “(a) to (c)”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my other amendment of clause 32 at page 61, line 5 and would ensure that section 436D(2)(b) only applies to information required to be included in the register by section 436C(1)(a) to (c).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

154: Clause 32, page 61, line 24, leave out “any one or more of”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of clause 32 at page 61, line 39.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

156: Clause 32, page 62, line 21, leave out from “education” to “at” in line 22 and insert “as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) to any child living in England or Wales (whether or not that child lives in the authority’s area) or has provided such education”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that a local authority may ask an education provider to confirm whether they are providing out-of-school education for children whether or not those children live in the authority’s area.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

158: Clause 32, page 64, line 36, at end insert—
“(c) information about access to examinations for the General Certificate of Secondary Education.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would add information about access to GCSE exams to the list of examples of matters about which a local authority can provide information, if such information is requested by the parent of a child registered under section 436B (as inserted by clause 32).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

161: Clause 32, page 64, line 37, leave out “duty in subsection (1) does not apply” and insert “duties in subsections (1), (2A) and (2B) do not apply in relation to a child”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my second amendment of clause 32 at page 64, line 36 and would set out the circumstances in which the new duties would not apply.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

162: Clause 32, page 65, line 8, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) In section 569(2A)—(a) after “section” insert “436B(6), 436C(1)(e), 436C(2), 436C(4), 436E(1)(a), 436E(7), 436E(9), 436F(1), 436F(2),”;(b) after “550ZC(7)” insert “, or under paragraph 5 of Schedule 31A”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that all regulations made by the Secretary of State under the listed provisions of the Education Act 1996 as inserted by clause 32 relating to the registration of children not in school will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

165: Clause 33, page 68, line 35, at end insert “; or has taken such action during the period of 5 years ending with the date on which a preliminary notice is to be served under subsection (1).”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow a local authority to serve a preliminary notice for a school attendance order where the local authority has taken action under section 47(8) of the Children Act 1989 during the period of 5 years prior to the date on which the notice is to be served.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

169: Clause 33, page 70, line 10, after “that Act” insert “, or which has been taken during the period of 5 years ending with the date that the order would be made,”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would also cover action taken by the local authority under section 47(8) of the Children Act 1989 during the period of 5 years prior to the date on which the school attendance order would be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

172: Clause 33, page 77, line 28, after “that Act” insert “, or which has been taken during the period of 5 years ending with the date that the order was made,”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would also cover action taken by the local authority under section 47(8) of the Children Act 1989 during the period of 5 years prior to the date on which the school attendance order was made.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

173: Clause 34, page 81, line 32, leave out “Except as provided by subsection (3),”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 34, page 81, line 39.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

175: Clause 35, page 82, line 10, leave out “under sections” and insert “under or by virtue of sections 434A, 434B and”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that local authorities have regard to guidance when exercising functions relating to the withdrawal of children from school.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I too thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for tabling this amendment again. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, we had a fervent debate in Committee, where the case was made for the precious nature of Haredi traditions but also for the importance of avoiding a two-tier system of education; and that the reality for some young men was that they felt their experience at a yeshiva had been deeply damaging.

My noble friend Lord Lucas suggested that the department pick a time period to resolve these issues; that seems a very constructive suggestion. It feels as though this amendment has the elements in it for a way through this very long-running debate, given that it includes a commitment both to suitable out-of-school education and to safeguarding issues being addressed. I acknowledge the deep concerns that were expressed in Committee and I hope very much that the Minister finds a way through this, not least for the Haredi community, who are obviously deeply anxious about it.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As other noble Lords have done, I first thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for bringing forward Amendment 175A. Of course, this amendment was previously tabled in Committee and debated extensively then. For reasons of time, I will not repeat that debate.

However, I agree with my noble friend Lady Morris that support for this clause is absolutely not a failure to recognise the significance of faith-based education across a range of faiths in our country. My noble friend is right, and she has championed and supported this, even in the face of opposition. I assure the Haredi community that it is neither a denigration of their faith nor of the way in which they wish to express it in a plural England, where I very much hope they feel able to be, and remain, a full part of our community.

It may assist the House if I clarify the purpose and effect of Clause 37 and the Government’s general approach in this area. In so doing, I will attempt to answer the questions raised by the right reverend Prelate. Clause 37 starts from the position that, if a setting is providing full-time education to children of compulsory school age, it should be regulated and subject to oversight. I trust that there is broad support across the House for this principle. Clause 37 therefore extends to more settings the regulatory regime found in Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Education and Skills Act 2008.

I reiterate that it is categorically not the Government’s intention to close down yeshivas. This is the same ready-made, flexible and effective system of regulation that independent schools have been able to operate within for many years, including those with a primary faith ethos. Let me be clear: there is nothing in this clause that, in itself, requires impacted settings to become schools or to operate identically to other settings already regulated by this regime. What the clause does do, in broad terms, is subject impacted full-time settings to a regime of registration and the need to comply with prescribed standards and inspection against those standards. While people running educational settings should already have an idea of whether they provide a full-time education, based on an ordinary understanding of those words, the Government will produce guidance so that it is clear whether a setting is being brought into regulation by this measure.

In addition, the right reverend Prelate asked for confirmation that the regulatory regime found in the 2008 Act permits different standards to be prescribed for different types of setting. I can confirm that this is the case and that Ministers have not yet decided which standards would be prescribed. Any decision will only follow extensive engagement and consultation. This is likely to take a minimum of several months and will take into account all relevant views, including those concerning the appropriateness of teaching relationships and sex education in regulated settings.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

176: Clause 40, page 99, line 8, leave out from “address” to end of line 11 and insert “of buildings that the institution makes available for student use;”;”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my amendment to clause 40 at page 99, line 12, would require an application to register an independent educational institution to include just the address and not the description of buildings where students are routinely provided with education, meals or accommodation.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We have moved slightly faster than I expected us to move, which I am sure is greatly welcomed by most Members of your Lordships’ House. I begin with the group of amendments concerning Clause 40. Government Amendments 176 to 183 and 185 principally concern the Bill’s provisions on the material change regime, which governs the type of change that independent schools require Secretary of State approval to make.

When the Bill was first published, concern was raised that minor or secondary changes, such as bike sheds or classroom conversions, would be unnecessarily captured if changes of buildings at a school’s already registered address were treated as material changes. The Government have listened to these concerns and the amendments now make clear that building changes at a school’s registered address do not require material change approval. Importantly, the same principle applies to any additional addresses that the department registers after approving a change of building. Further changes of building at these addresses will not be treated as material changes.

These amendments take a proportionate approach. They reflect that a registered school making use of new or unfamiliar addresses may be placing pupils at higher risk of harm. Under these changes, the focus will be on any addresses beyond the school’s registered address and any additional addresses registered following an approved change of buildings where there is no prior assurance that standards are met. In addition, these amendments clarify that only changes to how an institution providing special education is specially organised constitute a material change and require ministerial approval. Actions taken solely to meet an individual pupil’s needs do not constitute a material change.

The Government have worked closely with interested parties to ensure that the original policy intent is properly captured. It is right that, where independent schools make changes to their operations that may place children at risk of harm, the Secretary of State is made aware of that and is given assurance that these changes are safe. That is an important principle, and these amendments are a sensible balancing act between strengthening oversight and avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy.

I turn to Amendment 184. In Committee there was broad support for Clause 43, which aims to strengthen Ofsted’s powers to investigate suspected illegal, unregistered independent schools and registered schools operating unlawfully. These additional powers have been drawn with an awareness that the powers currently available to Ofsted in Section 97 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 are inadequate to identify suspected criminal behaviour. Therefore, when drawing up Clause 43, the Government listened closely to the chief inspector to make sure that these powers can be put into operation.

The amendment is aimed at giving greater confidence to the chief inspector when operating under these new powers. It is the Government’s experience that demonstrating offences in this space relies heavily on gathering documentary evidence. Some of that evidence may, under ordinary circumstances, be considered confidential or otherwise fall within existing legislative restrictions. The amendment therefore facilitates the chief inspector’s access to such information when acting under the authority of a warrant, where that is relevant to deciding whether a relevant offence is being or has been committed. It further ensures that independent judicial oversight, in the form of a warrant, is sought before such documents are inspected, copied or, when necessary, seized in reliance on these powers. This approach strikes the right balance between protecting the rights of the individual and ensuring that the chief inspector is able to properly inspect potentially dangerous settings. I beg to move.

[Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a quick question for the Minister on Amendment 184, which she described towards the end of her speech. I agree with the purpose of this and most of the details, but I am not quite sure what is meant by “excluded material” or “special procedure material”. Is that anything to do with data protection? If it is an unregistered school, would the inspector be able to go in and seize, copy or have access to a register or pupil progress file without having to go and get a warrant? If they gain access and then have to go and get a warrant before they can see the register or the pupil progress information, they are not going to be able to do their job effectively—but that hangs on what is meant by “special procedure material” and “excluded material”. Does that include things such as school registers?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for listening to the concerns that we raised on this side, both in the other place and in your Lordships’ House, about the scope of Clause 40. We feel that it is much improved and are grateful to the Government for listening.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Perhaps I could come back to my noble friend Lady Morris on the details of that particular question; I am sorry that I cannot respond to it now.

I welcome the welcome provided to the Government’s amendments in this group. I also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that we have had extensive discussions with Ofsted about the provisions we are proposing here to make sure they enable Ofsted to do what this Bill is strengthening its ability to do.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

When the Minister gets back to her noble friend, could she also copy us in with that information? It would be quite useful to understand as well.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I will, as I think is normal when I write to noble Lords about issues that have come up in the debates, copy in anybody that fancies it and probably place a copy in the Library as well for good measure.

Amendment 176 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

177: Clause 40, page 99, line 12, at end insert—
“(3ZA) For the purposes of subsection (3)(ea)—(a) “building” means any—(i) building,(ii) part of a building,(iii) permanent outdoor structure, or(iv) part of a permanent outdoor structure,which is wholly or mainly enclosed;(b) a building is made available “for student use” by an institution if students at the institution are routinely present in the building—(i) to be provided with meals or accommodation by the institution, or(ii) to be provided with education by the institution and, while the education is being provided, the building is controlled by the institution.”Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to clause 40 at page 99, line 8.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

184: Clause 43, page 107, line 27, at end insert “, other than such of the following as is relevant to the investigation of a relevant offence—
“(a) material that is excluded material within the meaning of section 11(1)(a) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984;(b) material that is special procedure material within the meaning of section 14(2) of that Act.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would grant the Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills power to seize, inspect or take copies of certain documents for the purpose of investigating offences under the Education and Skills Act 2008.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

186: Clause 45, page 110, line 33, leave out “Except as provided by subsection (3),”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 45, page 111, lines 3 to 8.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments concerns three distinct areas, which I will take in turn. Amendments 190 and 191 concern the jurisdiction of the Teaching Regulation Agency. Amendment 190 would remove the ability of the TRA to investigate alleged misconduct that occurred before an individual began their teaching career.

I understand the concern here may also be that Clause 46 permits the TRA to investigate those who at any time have been employed or engaged in teaching work and hold those responsible for their conduct at any time in their life. Given that this includes me, I can wholly understand noble Lords’ concerns.

At present, the teacher misconduct regime limits the TRA’s jurisdiction only to those who are currently employed or engaged in teaching work, or who were so employed or engaged when the referral was made. There are problems with this—it cannot be right. Clause 46 addresses this by extending the TRA’s jurisdiction to those who have at any time been employed or engaged in teaching work. Noble Lords can imagine that there could be times when somebody has very recently resigned, possibly with the idea of avoiding a referral to come, and is not able to be investigated. So there are circumstances where it would be appropriate to change the ability of the TRA to investigate.

Given what noble Lords have said today, despite the assurances that my honourable friend Georgia Gould was able to provide to noble Lords during the meeting they held with her, I can understand noble Lords’ concerns. Therefore, the department is not in the position of wanting to implement Clause 46 without having undertaken considerable further consultation, having considered the points that noble Lords have raised. I hope I can give that assurance this evening, and I will find a way to come back to noble Lords with how we intend to do that and some of the safeguards around the sorts of issues that noble Lords have identified this evening.

While Amendment 190 seeks to narrow the TRA’s jurisdiction, Amendment 191, as the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, says, seeks to extend the TRA’s jurisdiction. I understand the concern here that holders of iQTS may work in a school in England but previously have committed misconduct in a foreign country and that, as such, the TRA’s jurisdiction should be expanded to cover all holders of iQTS.

There are problems with this amendment, which have been outlined in the correspondence we have had with my noble friend Lord Knight. I thank him, and the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, for the approach they are taking to what is a clearly worrying problem. We would not want there to be a limit on restricting the ability of those who have committed the types of behaviours the noble Baroness has outlined to work in schools in the UK. There have been some important developments in the ability of both international and UK schools to check a teacher’s record. Once again, noble Lords have made a strong case, and while we cannot accept Amendment 191 for the technical reasons that were outlined in the correspondence, I undertake to continue discussions with the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, my noble friend Lord Knight and the Safeguarding Alliance to try and find a way through, because I recognise that there is an issue here.

I turn to the proposed new clause in Amendment 191A of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, on opening up the right to accompaniment for school staff at disciplinary and grievance hearings. While I thank him and other noble Lords for their thoughts on this matter, I do not believe that this amendment is necessary. This issue, as others have said, was debated at some length during passage of the Employment Rights Bill. Following Third Reading, my noble friend Lord Collins set out the Government’s commitment to review in its entirety the functioning of Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999, which includes provisions on who can be a companion and the right to be accompanied. As part of the review, we will engage with relevant and interested stakeholders and following its conclusion, we will publish our findings in Parliament. This House accepted the Government’s concession on this matter, and the amendment was withdrawn. We will, as the noble Lord asks, consider the implications of the review outcomes for the school workforce. I hope he agrees with the Government that it would be entirely inappropriate for the Department for Education to act unilaterally on this matter for school staff until the full review has taken place and reported. I hope, therefore, that he will not press his amendment.

Turning to the group of amendments relating to parental complaints and appeals, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Spielman and Lady Barran, for tabling these amendments again. Amendments 223, 224, and 225 would, respectively, allow parents and carers of children in maintained schools, independent schools including academies, and non-maintained special schools to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. Amendment 226 would allow for regulations to amend secondary legislation on the rules and procedures of the First-tier Tribunal. Amendment 243D seeks to introduce a central complaints system to handle school-related complaints in England, and for these complaints to be held in a central database accessible to the Department for Education and Ofsted.

My noble friend Lady Blake previously gave detail in Committee on the work we are doing to improve the school complaints system. I will not repeat that today, but I confirm that our aim remains to reduce the burden on schools and leaders, while also maintaining parents’ rights to raise concerns and have them properly considered. We will be providing more detail on this in the forthcoming schools White Paper, but on the role of the First-tier Tribunal, we still do not believe that introducing an additional layer of appeal to the general school complaints system is the right way to achieve our aim of reducing the burdens on schools. The First-tier Tribunal is already under significant pressure, and despite the investment of additional administrative and judicial resource, which has ensured the conclusion of more appeals, the rise in demand is nevertheless outstripping the increase in capacity at present. Expanding the remit of the tribunal would only lead to longer delays for families. We do not think it would be appropriate or proportionate to expand the First-tier Tribunal’s role to include general complaints about schools, but we recognise the concerns being raised in general. We are actively looking at how we can strengthen the independent element of the school complaints process, so that, where parents need to escalate their complaint, they are reassured that it is assessed fairly and objectively.

The noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, talked about the work the department has been doing with the charity Parentkind. As she pointed out, we have worked with the charity to develop the Parent Guide to School Complaints, which was published on 20 January. We are also exploring potential digital options for improving the system. This work involves user research and testing with the sector—including with parents, teachers and headteachers—to ensure that we get this right and that it works for everyone involved. This type of work takes time, of course, but I hope this offers assurance to noble Lords that we are considering this as part of our package of reforms that we will set out in the schools White Paper.

I hope I have addressed noble Lords’ concerns in responding to the amendments. I invite them not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her response. On Amendment 190, what I heard her say was that she would undertake not to implement Clause 46 without proper consultation. I urge her to look again with her colleagues at the wording of the clause, because while the Government’s intent is absolutely spot on, it is not what is said in the clause. If there is a way to do more, that would be even better.

I thank the Minister for her responses and for her openness to continue the conversation on Amendment 191. She almost repeated my noble friend’s words about simplification in the schools White Paper, so we look forward to seeing Amendment 243D back in new, official, government form. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 190.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

192: Clause 50, page 117, leave out lines 5 to 22 and insert—
“(1) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that the proprietor of an Academy has breached a duty imposed by Academy arrangements, the Secretary of State may give the proprietor such directions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate to secure the proper performance of the duty.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment limits the Secretary of State’s power to direct the proprietor of an Academy to cases where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the proprietor has already breached a duty imposed by Academy arrangements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, government amendments 192 and 193 would strengthen accountability in the academy sector and introduce trust-level inspection to ensure high standards across all trusts. Together, they respond to discussion and points raised in Committee and deliver a proportionate, effective framework for intervention and improvement.

Amendment 192 will narrow the scope of Clause 50, so that the Secretary of State may issue directions only where an academy proprietor has breached a duty imposed by its funding agreements. As stated in Committee, Clause 50 is an important lever for improving accountability in the academy sector. However, we have listened carefully to the concerns raised in this House and the other place about the breadth of the original clause, and we have acted to respond to those concerns and provide clarity. In particular, the amendment removes the anticipatory element of the power and confines its use to cases of actual breach, rather than where a breach is considered likely.

We want the use of directions to be clear, direct and proportionate. This government amendment will provide reassurance without weakening accountability, while maintaining the ability to act swiftly where standards are at risk. Academy trustees are also charity trustees, and we will engage with the Charity Commission, where appropriate, under our Memorandum of Understanding, prior to issuing a direction.

Government Amendment 193 will introduce Ofsted inspections of academy trusts and close a significant accountability gap. We have heard in debates the central role academy trusts play in our education system. Yet accountability has not kept pace with growth, despite decisions at trust level potentially having wide-reaching impacts on the quality of education and support that children receive in academies.

Inspection will provide independent, expert assessment of a trust’s strengths and areas for improvement, supporting a self-improving system and identifying where intervention is needed. This delivers on the manifesto commitment and responds to calls made across the House in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, like others I really regret that we are debating these amendments so late, because they are very important. I will try to get to my key points.

I thank the Minister for Amendment 192 in relation to Clause 50; this addresses some of the concerns that we raised about its scope in Committee and again in the other place. The main substance of this group, as we have heard, is the lengthy, prize-winning Amendment 193, which would allow the Government to introduce mass inspection. We debated this in Committee. It is curious that the Bill has gone through all stages in the other place and only now are we seeing this on Report. Some of the gaps that it reveals are highlighted in the amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and in my Amendments 193D and 193E. We can see that in the breadth of drafting of this amendment, with so much left to secondary legislation giving Secretary of State extremely broad powers—which suggested to me that it was an amendment that was drafted in haste rather than one that was on the shelf. Officials kindly invited me in to talk about the amendment before Christmas, and they argued the case for giving the Secretary of State maximum flexibility. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, said on an earlier group, we have talked about this ad nauseam, and the Government have acted to correct some of it, but this new clause goes in the wrong direction in relation to those powers.

If we think back to the introduction of the new school inspection regime, we see that there was a huge consultation and piloting of the approach, and now we are seeing it rolled out. All my Amendment 193D asks is that we mirror that and do exactly the same. I have suggested a focus in terms of the pilot, which would be to look at MATs that have groups of schools in the following categories. There would be one category where they are significantly underperforming and where there might be a case for intervention; and another would be where they would like to grow and take on other schools—quite rightly, the department would want reassurance that they had the skills to do that well. And then there would be a universal group—at this hour of the night, I cannot think of any other description—to see whether there is a case, at this point, for universal MAT inspection alongside school inspection. In a perfect world, one would have designed a new school inspection regime and a MAT inspection regime together to avoid some of the duplication to which other noble Lords have pointed.

When the Minister sums up, I would be grateful to know whether she can confirm that there is not a plan to inspect single academy trusts, and if there is, what the point of that would be, and that the Government plan to reawaken—or whatever you do to dormant legislation—the inspection of local authorities with regard to that school improvement function. If the Government want to look at school groupings, they should look at all school groupings rather than just one type.

I turn to my Amendment 194, and I thank my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes for her support for it. I did an interview with Schools Week not so long ago—which probably only my children have read, or, in fact, not even my children have read. They asked me what element of the Bill I was most worried about, and I said that it was this clause, which will delay intervention in schools that Ofsted has found unable to meet the new standards and intervention is required.

When we debated this in Committee, the Minister talked about the length of time for intervention, but she knows that the very long cases—some of the same cases are probably still running—typically reflect one of two things, or possibly both. One is where you have rural schools in very remote areas, where there is no other school or trust nearby that could take on and support the school adequately. The second is where significant funding is required from the department, particularly in relation to buildings or to bridge budget deficits if the school role has fallen significantly, and a lot of arm wrestling goes on, which takes time.

The new RISE teams will not be able to address either type of case any faster than the previous system. My amendment would avoid delay and judicial review, and, most importantly, it would make sure that children were back in high performing schools as quickly as possible. I also agree completely with what my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes said about Amendment 197. With that, rather than having to test the opinion of the House, I hope that the Minister will come back with more positive and constructive responses.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, despite the lateness of the hour, we have had a good discussion on the issues raised in group 10.

I turn to the amendments that have been discussed during this debate. I will start with Amendments 193A and 193B, tabled in the names of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and Amendment 193C, tabled by the right reverend Prelate. These relate to the inspection of trusts, including academies that have been designated

“as having a religious character”.

Amendments 193A and 193B propose additional requirements for Ofsted to share trust inspection reports—what the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend described as “important communication issues”. I recognise the importance of both informing the relevant religious authorities about trust-level inspections and ensuring robust oversight of trust leaders in relation to developing and maintaining the religious character of faith-based settings.

On Amendment 193A, I hope that I can provide some reassurance to the right reverend Prelate that there is already a duty on Ofsted to inform religious authorities in advance of a routine trust inspection. Our provisions already include a duty for Ofsted to share reports of routine inspections with the trust, and the Secretary of State has a power to share them with persons it deems appropriate. Ofsted has confirmed that it will always deem a religious authority that it has already informed about an inspection taking place as an appropriate person to receive a report. I can therefore assure noble Lords that religious authorities will always be sent the report by Ofsted.

On Amendment 193B, as religious authorities will always receive a full trust inspection report setting out that a trust is not performing to an acceptable standard, they do not need to be separately notified about a poor inspection outcome. I therefore hope that noble Lords recognise that Amendments 193A and 193B are not necessary.

Turning to Amendment 193C, the current framework for inspecting denominational education and worship is already a complex mixture of statutory and non-statutory provisions. Moving directly to a statutory framework for academy trusts at this stage risks adding further complexity to that element of the inspection. It is therefore important that we take the time necessary to develop any future approach carefully so that trust-level inspection of denominational matters aligns with existing arrangements of this nature for individual settings, and functions coherently with the wider inspection system.

As the right reverend Prelate has identified, officials have had discussions with officers from the Catholic Education Service and the Church of England Education Office. We are committed to working with the churches and other faiths to developing a non-statutory framework as an initial and constructive step, ahead of considering opportunities for potential legislation in the future. That work will include pilots, which have been developed with faith bodies and trusts to pilot inspection of collective worship and denominational education trusts with faith schools.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

193: After Clause 50, insert the following new Clause—
“Inspection of Academy proprietors(1) In Part 8 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (Inspections), after Chapter 2, insert—“Chapter 2AInspection of Academy proprietorsInspection
122A Duty to inspect Academy proprietors at specified intervals(1) The Chief Inspector must— (a) conduct inspections of every Academy proprietor at such intervals as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State, and(b) prepare a written report on completion of each inspection.(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that subsection (1) does not apply in relation to specified categories of Academy proprietor in specified circumstances.(3) An Academy proprietor in relation to which subsection (1) does not apply by virtue of regulations under subsection (2) is an “exempt proprietor”.(4) When conducting an inspection under this section, the Chief Inspector must have regard to any views about the matters listed in section 122B(2) which are expressed to the Chief Inspector by—(a) such persons as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State;(b) such other persons as the Chief Inspector considers appropriate.(5) Subsection (1) has effect subject to subsection 122E.(6) An inspection which is required under this section must not extend to—(a) denominational education provided at an Academy which has been designated as having a religious character, or which is to be treated as having been so designated by virtue of section 6(8) of the Academies Act 2010, or(b) the content of collective worship at such an Academy.122B Report of section 122A inspection(1) It is the general duty of the Chief Inspector, when conducting an inspection under section 122A, to report on the quality and effectiveness of the Academy proprietor’s leadership, management and governance in connection with its role as an Academy proprietor.(2) The Chief Inspector’s report must (in particular) cover—(a) the quality and effectiveness of any activities undertaken by the Academy proprietor to secure the provision of a quality education to registered pupils and students of its Academies;(b) the quality and effectiveness of the Academy proprietor’s governance and executive leadership;(c) the quality and effectiveness of any activities undertaken by the Academy proprietor to promote the wellbeing of children and young persons;(d) the quality and effectiveness of any activities undertaken by the Academy proprietor to secure improvements in its Academies;(e) the quality and effectiveness of the Academy proprietor’s management of its resources;(f) such other matters as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(3) The Chief Inspector must send a copy of a report under section 122A(1)(b) to—(a) the Academy proprietor, and(b) the Secretary of State.(4) The Academy proprietor must—(a) make a copy of any report sent to it under subsection (3) available for inspection by members of the public,(b) provide a copy of the report, free of charge, upon request, and (c) take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that every registered parent of a pupil at an Academy school or alternative provision Academy of which the Academy proprietor is the proprietor receives a copy of the report within five working days following receipt of the report by the Academy proprietor.(5) The Chief Inspector may send a copy of the report to such other persons as the Chief Inspector considers appropriate.(6) The Chief Inspector may arrange for the report to be published in such manner as the Chief Inspector considers appropriate.(7) In this section—“child” means a person aged under 18, and references to “children” are to be read accordingly;“wellbeing” , in relation to a child or young person, means their wellbeing so far as relating to the matters mentioned in section 10(2) of the Children Act 2004;“working day” means a day other than a Saturday, a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971;“young person” means any of the persons mentioned in section 10(9) of the Children Act 2004.122C Other inspections(1) The Chief Inspector must inspect and report on any Academy proprietor, or category of Academy proprietor, in connection with its role as an Academy proprietor, if requested to do so by the Secretary of State.(2) The Chief Inspector may inspect and report on any Academy proprietor, in connection with its role as an Academy proprietor, in circumstances where there is no requirement to do so under any other provision of this Chapter.(3) If the Chief Inspector carries out an inspection under subsection (2) in response to a request from the Academy proprietor, the Chief Inspector may charge the Academy proprietor for the cost of the inspection.(4) An inspection which is conducted under this section must not extend to—(a) denominational education provided at an Academy which has been designated as having a religious character, or which is to be treated as having been so designated by virtue of section 6(8) of the Academies Act 2010, or(b) the content of collective worship at such an Academy.(5) The Chief Inspector may arrange for a report under this section to be published in such manner as the Chief Inspector considers appropriate.122D Duty to notify certain persons of inspection(1) Before conducting an inspection under section 122A the Chief Inspector must notify—(a) the Academy proprietor, and(b) any relevant religious body.(2) If the Academy proprietor is notified by the Chief Inspector that the Chief Inspector is proposing to inspect the Academy proprietor under section 122A, the Academy proprietor must take such steps as are reasonably practicable to notify the following persons of the time when the inspection is to take place—(a) the registered parents of registered pupils at any Academy school or alternative provision Academy of which the Academy proprietor is the proprietor;(b) the members of the Academy proprietor (if any). (3) If the Academy proprietor is notified by the Chief Inspector that the Chief Inspector is electing to treat, or is required by the Secretary of State to treat, an inspection under section 122C as if it were an inspection under section 122A as a result of the exercise of a power under section 122E, the Academy proprietor must take such steps as are reasonably practicable to notify the following persons that the inspection is being so treated, and of the time when the inspection is to take place—(a) the registered parents of registered pupils at any Academy school or alternative provision Academy of which the Academy proprietor is the proprietor;(b) the members of the Academy proprietor (if any);(c) any relevant religious body.(4) Any notification given under subsection (2)(a) or (3)(a) must include a statement, in a form approved by the Chief Inspector, inviting the registered parents of registered pupils to inform the Chief Inspector of their views on matters relating to—(a) the Academy at which their child is a registered pupil;(b) the Academy proprietor.122E Power or duty to treat other inspection as section 122A inspection(1) The Chief Inspector may elect for an inspection under section 122C of an Academy proprietor to which section 122A applies to be treated as if it were an inspection under section 122A for the purposes of section 122A(1), section 122B(3) to (6) and section 122H.(2) In the case of an inspection of an exempt proprietor under section 122C, the Chief Inspector may elect to treat the inspection as if it were an inspection under section 122A for the purposes of section 122A(4) and sections 122B and 122H.(3) The Secretary of State may require the Chief Inspector to treat an inspection under section 122C(1) of an Academy proprietor to which section 122A applies as if it were an inspection under section 122A for the purposes of section 122A(1) and (4) and sections 122B and 122H.(4) In the case of an inspection of an exempt proprietor under section 122C(1), the Secretary of State may require the Chief Inspector to treat the inspection as if it were an inspection under section 122A for the purposes of section 122A(4) and sections 122B and 122H.(5) In this section, “exempt proprietor” has the meaning given by section 122A(3).122F Framework for inspections under this Chapter(1) The Chief Inspector must devise—(a) a common set of principles applicable to all inspections conducted under this Chapter, or(b) two or more common sets of principles each of which is applicable to a particular description of such inspections.(2) A set of principles devised under subsection (1)(a) or (b) is referred to in this section as a “framework”.(3) If the Chief Inspector devises two or more frameworks under subsection (1)(b), the Chief Inspector must ensure that, taken together, they cover all inspections conducted under this Chapter.(4) A framework must cover such matters as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(5) The Chief Inspector must publish a framework in such manner as the Chief Inspector considers appropriate. (6) The Chief Inspector may at any time revise a framework.(7) The Chief Inspector must publish a revised framework in such manner as the Chief Inspector considers appropriate.(8) In devising or revising a framework, the Chief Inspector must have regard to guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.Powers of entry etc.
122G Powers of entry etc. for purposes of inspection(1) This section applies to an inspection conducted by the Chief Inspector under this Chapter.(2) The Chief Inspector may, at any reasonable time, enter—(a) any premises of the Academy proprietor;(b) the premises of any Academy of which the Academy proprietor is the proprietor;(c) any other premises on which, by virtue of arrangements made by the Academy proprietor, any pupils or students who are registered at an Academy within paragraph (b) are receiving part of their education from any person (“the provider”);(d) any premises of the provider used in connection with the provision by the provider of that education.(3) The Chief Inspector may, at any reasonable time, inspect, take copies of, or take away such of the following as the Chief Inspector considers relevant to the discharge of the Chief Inspector’s functions under this Chapter—(a) any documents or records kept by the Academy proprietor;(b) any documents or records kept by an Academy of which the Academy proprietor is the proprietor;(c) any documents or records kept by the provider relating to the provision of education by virtue of arrangements made by the Academy proprietor.(4) The power in subsection (3) includes—(a) power to require any person holding or accountable for any such documents or records to produce them, and(b) in relation to any such documents or records kept by means of a computer, power to require them to be produced in a form in which they are legible and can be taken away.(5) In connection with inspecting any such documents or records the Chief Inspector—(a) may obtain access to, and inspect and check the operation of, any computer and associated apparatus or material which the Chief Inspector considers is or has been in use in connection with the documents or records, and(b) may require a person within subsection (6) to afford the Chief Inspector such reasonable assistance as the Chief Inspector requires for that purpose.(6) A person is within this subsection if that person is—(a) the person by whom or on whose behalf the computer is or has been used, or(b) a person having charge of, or otherwise concerned with the operation of, the computer, apparatus or material.(7) A person is guilty of an offence if that person intentionally obstructs the Chief Inspector in the exercise of any function conferred by this Chapter.(8) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale. Academy proprietors not performing to acceptable standard
122H Academy proprietors not performing to acceptable standard(1) Subsections (2) to (4) apply if, on completion of an inspection under section 122A, the Chief Inspector is of the opinion that—(a) the persons responsible for leading, managing and governing the Academy proprietor are failing to lead, manage or govern the Academy proprietor to an acceptable standard, or(b) the Academy proprietor is failing to lead, manage or govern an Academy of which it is the proprietor to an acceptable standard.(2) The Chief Inspector must—(a) send a draft of the report of the inspection to the Academy proprietor, and(b) consider any comments on the draft that are made by the Academy proprietor within such period as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(3) Where, after complying with subsection (2), the Chief Inspector is of the opinion that the case falls within paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1), the Chief Inspector must—(a) without delay, notify the following persons in writing of that opinion—(i) the Secretary of State,(ii) the Academy proprietor, and(b) state that opinion in the report of the inspection.(4) A notification made under subsection (3)(a) must also record—(a) in a case within subsection (1)(a), whether the Chief Inspector is of the opinion that the persons responsible for leading, managing and governing the Academy proprietor are demonstrating the capacity to secure the necessary improvement in the Academy proprietor;(b) in a case within subsection (1)(b), whether the Chief Inspector is of the opinion that the Academy proprietor is demonstrating the capacity to secure the necessary improvement in the Academy.Supplementary
122I Regulations under Chapter 2A(1) Regulations under this Chapter may—(a) make different provision for different purposes;(b) make consequential provision.(2) A statutory instrument containing provision made under any of the following provisions of this Chapter (whether alone or with other provision) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament—(a) section 122A(2);(b) section 122B(2)(f);(c) section 122F(4).(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations made under any other provision of this Chapter is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.122J Interpretation of Chapter 2A(1) In this Chapter—“Academy” means an educational institution to which Academy arrangements relate;“Academy arrangements” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Academies Act 2010;“Academy proprietor” is a person who, in pursuance of Academy arrangements, is the proprietor of an Academy; “Academy school” has the meaning given by section 1A of the Academies Act 2010;“alternative provision Academy” has the meaning given by section 1C of that Act;“denominational education” , in relation to an Academy, means religious education which—(a) is provided in accordance with—(i) any provisions of the trust deed affecting the Academy which relate to the teaching and learning of religious education, or(ii) the tenets of the religion or religious denomination in relation to which the Academy is designated, and(b) is not required by Academy arrangements to be given in accordance with the requirements for agreed syllabuses in section 375(3) of the Education Act 1996;“parent” has the meaning given by section 576 of that Act;“registered” , in relation to the parents of pupils at an Academy school or alternative provision Academy, means shown in the register kept under section 434 of that Act;“registered pupil” , in relation to an Academy school or alternative provision Academy, means a person registered as a pupil in that register;“relevant religious body” , in relation to an Academy, means—(a) in the case of a Church of England Academy or a Roman Catholic Church Academy, the appropriate diocesan authority,(b) in any other case, such body or person as is specified in the Academy arrangements relating to the Academy as representing the religion or religious denomination in relation to which the Academy is designated, andin the case of an Academy designated in relation to more than one religion or religious denomination, references to “the relevant religious body” are to be read as references to all of the relevant religious bodies applicable to the Academy;“trust deed” , in relation to an Academy, includes any instrument (other than the articles or memorandum of association) regulating the constitution of the Academy proprietor or the maintenance, management or conduct of the Academy.(2) In subsection (1)—(a) “Church of England Academy” means an Academy in the Province of Canterbury or York in relation to which the religion or religious denomination specified in the order designating the Academy as having a religious character is “Church of England” and “appropriate diocesan authority”, in relation to such an Academy, means the Diocesan Board of Education for the diocese of the Church of England in which the school is situated, and(b) “Roman Catholic Church Academy” means an Academy in relation to which the religion or religious denomination specified in the order designating the Academy as having a religious character is “Roman Catholic” and “appropriate diocesan authority”, in relation to such an Academy, means the bishop of the Roman Catholic diocese in which the Academy is situated.(3) For the purposes of this Chapter, an Academy has been “designated as having a religious character” if it has been so designated by an order under—(a) section 69(3) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 by virtue of section 124B(2) of that Act, or (b) section 8A(1) of the Academies Act 2010 (16 to 19 academies having religious character), andreferences to the order designating the Academy as having a religious character should be read accordingly.”(2) The Academies Act 2010 is amended in accordance with subsections (3) to (5).(3) After section 2A insert—“2AA Academy agreements: provision about failing Academy proprietors(1) An Academy agreement must include provision allowing the Secretary of State to terminate the agreement if the Chief Inspector has given notice under section 122H(3)(a) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 that—(a) the persons responsible for leading, managing and governing the Academy proprietor are failing to lead, manage or govern the Academy proprietor to an acceptable standard, or(b) the Academy proprietor is failing to lead, manage or govern an Academy of which it is the proprietor to an acceptable standard.(2) The Academy agreement must require the Secretary of State, before terminating the agreement on one of those grounds, to give the proprietor a termination warning notice.(3) A termination warning notice is a notice—(a) requesting that the Academy proprietor respond to the Secretary of State by making representations, or(b) requiring the Academy proprietor—(i) to take specified action by a specified date, and(ii) to respond to the Secretary of State by making representations, or by agreeing to take that action, by a specified date.(4) The Academy agreement must provide that, where a termination warning notice under subsection (3)(b) is given to the Academy proprietor on one of the grounds specified in subsection (1), the power to terminate the agreement is available only if the proprietor has failed to comply with the termination warning notice (whether by failing to take specified action, or to respond, on time).”(4) For section 2C (new academy agreements) substitute—“2C Sections 2A, 2AA and 2B supplementary - new agreements(1) An Academy agreement made on or after 18 April 2016, but before the day on which section [inspection of Academy proprietors] of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 comes fully into force may include further provision about—(a) the procedure for terminating the agreement in accordance with the provision required by section 2A or 2B;(b) the consequences of terminating the agreement in accordance with that provision.(2) An academy agreement made on or after the day on which section [inspection of Academy proprietors] of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 comes fully into force may include further provision about—(a) the procedure for terminating the agreement in accordance with the provision required by section 2A, 2AA or 2B;(b) the consequences of terminating the agreement in accordance with that provision.(3) Section 2D makes provision about agreements entered into before those dates.”(5) For section 2D (old academy agreements) substitute— “2D Sections 2A, 2AA and 2B supplementary - old agreements(1) An old Academy agreement is to be treated as if it included the new termination powers.(2) A pre-section 2AA agreement is to be treated as if it included the section 2AA termination powers.(3) A provision of an old Academy agreement that relates to the procedure for terminating the agreement does not apply to the new termination powers.(4) A provision of a pre-section 2AA agreement that relates to the procedure for terminating the agreement does not apply to the section 2AA termination powers.(5) Subsections (6) and (7) apply where an old Academy agreement or a pre-section 2AA Academy agreement—(a) contains provision about the consequences of terminating the agreement (“relevant provision”), and(b) the relevant provision is expressed in a way that—(i) in the case of an old Academy agreement, is capable of covering termination in accordance with the new termination powers;(ii) in the case of a pre-section 2AA agreement, is capable of covering termination in accordance with the section 2AA termination powers.(6) The relevant provision applies to termination in accordance with—(a) in the case of an old Academy agreement, the new termination powers;(b) in the case of a pre-section 2AA agreement, the section 2AA termination powers.(7) If the relevant provision sets out different consequences depending on whether the agreement is terminated on the ground that the proprietor has breached the Agreement or on other grounds—(a) in the case of an old Academy agreement, termination in accordance with the new termination powers is to be treated as termination on the grounds of breach by the proprietor, and(b) in the case of a pre-section 2AA agreement, termination in accordance with the section 2AA termination powers, is to be treated as termination on the grounds of breach by the proprietor..(8) In this section—“new termination powers” , in relation to an Academy agreement, means the powers to terminate in accordance with the provision required by sections 2A, 2AA and 2B;“old Academy agreement” means an Academy agreement made before 18 April 2016;“pre-section 2AA agreement” means an Academy agreement made on or after the 18 April 2016, but before the day on which section [inspection of Academy proprietors] of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 comes fully into force;“section 2AA termination powers” in relation to an Academy agreement, means the powers to terminate in accordance with the provision required by section 2AA.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would amend Part 8 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 to establish a statutory regime for the inspection by Ofsted of Academy trusts. It would also amend the Academies Act 2010 to permit termination of a trust’s funding agreements in specified circumstances arising from an inspection.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I beg to move.

Amendments 193A to 193C (to Amendment 193) not moved.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I just want to respond briefly to a couple of the remarks that were made about the amendments in my name. In relation to Amendment 198, I thank my noble friend Lord Nash for adding his name but also for making the case that we need more special schools and more alternative provision. I hope the Minister will have something to say on that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, said—I wrote it down—that we were giving schools reasons not to take a child. But the reason is the other children in the classroom. I was not trying to suggest that that is easy. I am just saying that there is one child who needs the right place, and we should do everything we can to make that happen, but there are 29 other children who also need to learn and to be able to study safely.

I turn to Amendment 199. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, put it well when he said that it feels like we are punishing successful schools. That is the worry. Again, going back to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, the new school that is improving is exactly the example that would be allowed to continue to grow. I think perhaps she misunderstood my remarks about that. In relation to a situation such as Camden, as she knows, first of all, my amendment would not apply. You would have to make an appropriate plan in exactly the way that she described, but we are talking about areas where you have schools performing at very different levels and it is the best schools that are forced to reduce their numbers. The noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, describes that as market forces gone to “ridiculous” levels. I just think it is about respecting parent choice, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said.

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

With respect to the amendments in the first group, let me be completely clear that this Government are committed to ensuring that all children, especially the most vulnerable, can access a school place where they can achieve and thrive. The whole range of measures in the Bill reflects this objective.

Amendment 198, from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would introduce specific requirements for local authorities when using their powers to direct a school to admit a child. I agree with the noble Baroness that local authority decisions on directing the admission of a child should be reasonable, account for the needs of the child and ensure that schools can meet those needs. As noble Lords have argued, I accept that there is more that needs to be done to ensure that all schools can provide for the needs of children with special educational needs, and that sometimes it is more appropriate for those children to be educated elsewhere. We will address that challenge, which is wider than we are discussing today, in our forthcoming White Paper.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

202: Clause 58, page 124, line 14, at end insert—
“(5) In section 10 of the Academies Act 2010 (consultation: new and expanded educational institutions), in subsection (1)(a) omit the words from “other” to “authority),”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the duty to consult under section 10 of the Academies Act 2010 on whether Academy arrangements should be entered into would also apply to new educational institutions that are the subject of proposals pursuant to a notice under section 7 of Education and Inspections Act 2006.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, we now move to the group on opening new schools. Our priority is that good schools are opened when they are needed. Amendment 202 would amend Section 10 of the Academies Act 2010, relating to the establishment of new academies.

Currently, where academies are established under Section 6A of the Education and Inspections Act 2006—known as the “free school presumption” process—trusts are required to consult before deciding whether to enter into a funding agreement to run the academy. Section 6A will be repealed by the Bill and new academies will be established under Section 7 instead. This amendment is therefore necessary to retain a requirement to consult, meaning that relevant parties will be invited to comment on the details of the plan for the academy, including the planned admission arrangements. I beg to move.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 203 in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran. Free schools have played an important role in raising educational standards over the last 15 years, with their benefits felt most strongly in communities that have needed them the most. As I set out during our discussions in Committee, last summer’s exam results underline their impact: free schools outperformed other non-selective state schools at GCSE and A-level, pushing up standards, particularly in areas of significant deprivation and low educational achievement. Giving school leaders the autonomy to innovate, whether through a longer school day and more stretching curriculum or developing closer links with business and universities, clearly has a measurable impact on school outcomes.

This success continues: only last week, 62 students—over a quarter of the year group—at the London Academy of Excellence, one of the earliest free schools to open, learned they had secured Oxbridge offers, surpassing the success of many of the country’s leading independent schools. This outstanding achievement makes it even more regrettable that, in December, the Government chose not to go ahead with a new sixth-form free school in Middlesbrough, backed by Eton and Star Academies, which aimed to deliver similar outcomes for its students. It was one of 26 proposed mainstream free schools that were cancelled after a long delay, to the dismay of the teachers, parents and communities that had championed their plans.

It is not just one free school or trust making a huge difference: research from the NFER shows pupils attending secondary free schools get better grades at GCSE, have lower absence rates and are more likely to take A-levels and to go to university. Will the Government publish the quantitative thresholds that were used to judge community need, demographic demand and the impact on existing schools that lay behind the recent cancellation of each of the 28 mainstream free school projects, and will they publish the assessment scores for each cancelled project? This would be extremely helpful information and a transparent way for the groups that put a lot of effort into these projects, and the parents, who obviously may not have been privy to conversations with the DfE, to understand the reasons for the decisions.

Free schools have provided a route for new ideas, energy and educational models to join the state system. Indeed, the Government themselves have acknowledged that

“the free schools programme has been crucial to meeting demographic need and pioneering new models that can raise standards”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/12/25; col. 45WS.]

Yet Clause 58 will mean fewer chances to innovate and less opportunity for the best-performing academies to expand and replicate their models. It is disappointing that the Government, despite some of their words, seem unwilling in practice to recognise the contributions free schools have made, and indeed could continue to make, to improving our education system—an achievement in which we should all take pride.

--- Later in debate ---

It leaves one wondering whether the Government, for all their warm words, just have a problem with free schools. The Government’s approach risks putting this kind of innovation and progress at risk in order to address a sufficiency issue which they themselves cannot quantify.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As we have heard, group 2 relates to opening new schools. Amendment 203, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would remove Clause 58 from the Bill. Clause 58 ends the legal presumption that new schools should be academies always and allows a wider range of proposals for new schools to be put forward.

During Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, argued that the presumption process has worked well and raised concerns about the capacity of local authorities to deliver new schools. We provided her with further information on these points at her request. I emphasise again that we recognise the contribution that academies make to high and rising standards.

On the particular points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, on the free school pipeline, just to be clear, we are proceeding with those mainstream projects that meet the needs of communities, respond to demographic and housing demand and will raise standards without undermining the viability of existing local schools and colleges. We will back new schools that offer something unique for students who would otherwise not have access to it, but, again, we need to understand the context in which we are operating. Primary pupil numbers have been falling since 2018-19. That decline is set to feed into secondary. Creating new free schools now risks adding surplus capacity while demographic need declines.

Free schools have been a very positive addition to our school system, but, since 2010, over £300 million has been spent on over 53 schools that subsequently closed: money that could have been invested in places for children with special educational needs or in addressing urgent condition needs in existing schools. It is important that we plan these school places and these new openings carefully. We continue to back academy schools and are encouraging high-quality trusts to grow, for example by confirming that the outstanding Star Academies trust will be able to progress the Eton Star Dudley and Oldham projects, which will support young people in disadvantaged areas to progress to top universities, as we have heard.

In Teesside, the decision not to proceed reflects careful consideration of the likely impact on existing good-quality provision. Our assessment of the local context in each area indicated that there was a higher potential risk to the sustainability of the existing academic provision in Teesside than in Dudley and Oldham, which could not be mitigated by conditions. That is why the decision was taken not to proceed in Teesside but to proceed in Dudley and in Oldham. We also undertook to explore with Eton Star whether learners can be supported in a different way through its work.

I do not apologise for the Government taking responsible decisions about how we spend public money on high-quality but also sustainable provision for the future. In relation to special needs schools, for high-needs places we are offering most local authorities the option of per-place funding to deliver the same number of specialist places differently or to continue with their special or AP free school. The measure in Clause 58 will still provide a route for strong trusts to open new schools. We know that high-quality trusts exist in many areas of the country, but not everywhere. In many areas, we expect proposers of new schools to be predominantly or even exclusively high-quality academy trusts, but in other areas, the right trust may not be immediately available to provide the school that is needed. That is why Clause 58 provides flexibility and will support local authorities in fulfilling their sufficiency duty by allowing a wider range of proposals from different bodies and for different types of schools to be considered from the start of the process. This will better enable good local schools to open when needed. Given that, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment and support Clause 58.

Amendment 202 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

204: Leave out Clause 62
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove provision no longer needed because of the new general data protection override in section 183A and effect of 183B of the Data Protection Act 2018, both inserted by section 106 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 which came into force on 20 August 2025.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I have one substantive amendment in this group, Amendment 220, which is also signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked why the guidance needs to be statutory. I think the answer is that the issues associated with children who are questioning their gender at a young age overlaps significantly with the safeguarding responsibilities of a school and therefore should be on a statutory footing.

As we discussed in Committee, the consultation on the draft guidance for schools for children questioning their gender identity closed in May 2024, and we are now approaching the two-year anniversary of this. I must say that it is laughable that the Government think they will respond in a matter of weeks to a consultation about whether to prevent under-16s from accessing harmful and addictive social media, but it takes nearly two years and we have no response from government on the gender questioning guidance, which was in draft and had been consulted on. The Government repeatedly say they need time to get it right; I just wondered whether the Minister could give us an indication of how much time, and how much time they think they will need to get the social media issue right. It feels like, if this is two years, that might be 10 years. The Government really need to get moving to publish the guidance to safeguard our children in these schools from this very contested and harmful ideology.

I thank my noble friend Lady Sater and her cosignatories for the extremely constructive Amendment 243C, delivered with exactly the same amount of energy as our noble friend Lord Moynihan. We read in the national press about potential cuts to funding for sport in schools. I wonder whether the Minister can reassure the House that that is not the case. Sport is—I reluctantly admit, as the least athletic person in your Lordships’ House—extremely important. As we have heard, sport builds not just physical fitness but teamwork, mental resilience and an ability to meet the two imposters of triumph and disaster on the field with equanimity. I hope the Minister will give this amendment the consideration it deserves.

My noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes made the case powerfully for bringing consistency to the provision of relationships and sex education and PSHE to pupils in FE colleges. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and I tussled over his amendment back in the Schools Bill in 2022, but he remains very persuasive on this subject. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

Finally, I expressed our concerns about the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, in Committee. I am afraid our position has not changed.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group address themes that are central to pupils’ development and well-being, and the values that underpin life in Britain. The Government remain committed to supporting schools and colleges with clear expectations and guidance so that they can deliver high-quality teaching that reflects the diversity of young people’s experiences and prepares them for modern life.

Amendment 206, in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, seeks to introduce and define values of British citizenship. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and as the noble and right reverend Lord admitted, I have also had the benefit of discussing this before, particularly when he introduced his Private Member’s Bill. We had a good debate, which was longer than we are going to be able to have today, on this issue and on some of the questions raised by noble Lords about how we can ensure citizenship is not only on the national curriculum but delivered effectively.

Although I agree with the sentiment, I do not believe that primary legislation is the right way to secure effective implementation. Schools already embed important values through their statutory duty to promote pupils’ spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development. They should remain free to tailor their approach, ensuring that values remain relevant to pupils’ lives.

However, we need to do more to give citizenship teaching the place it deserves on the curriculum. That is why, following the curriculum and assessment review, we will introduce new statutory citizenship teaching at primary level and an updated secondary programme of study. Consultation on that work will be under way soon, so noble Lords who have rightly engaged in the debate about the significance of citizenship teaching will be able to contribute to that.

On Amendment 208 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, as I said in Committee, we recognise the importance of supporting young people with high-quality teaching on healthy relationships. That is why personal, social, health and economic education, including sex and relationships, is taught in colleges. However, I recognise the gap in the nature of the requirement the noble Baroness identifies, particularly for further education colleges. We have begun to take action on that.

In response to calls from the further education sector, we commissioned a leading expert to create a well-evidenced range of resources to help colleges deliver high-impact relationships and sex education tutorials. I am grateful to Polly Harrow, our FE champion on this, for the work she is doing. The freely available toolkit provides high-quality lesson plans, materials and bespoke training to equip staff with the confidence needed to engage young people in conversations about misogyny, respect and consent, particularly given the context which many noble Lords have referenced this afternoon: the particular challenges for young people of this age, which I wholly accept and share their concern on.

I was particularly affected by the meeting I was able to have with Faustine Petron from the Make It Mandatory campaign, along with colleagues from the Sex Education Forum, End Violence Against Women and the Brook sexual health charity about the requirement to go further on this.

Although the Bill is not the best vehicle, as I have discussed with the noble Baroness, given this late stage in its progress and the absence of other further education measures, I intend to identify the most deliverable route to make relationships and sex education mandatory in further education. As the noble Baroness will know, I am not in a position to name Bills that may or may not be coming down the track, but she also referenced the possibility that somebody might choose this as a topic for a Private Member’s Bill. Were that to be the case, I would most certainly want to engage in supporting that making progress.

On Amendments 220 and 247 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, we have been clear about our commitment to placing children’s well-being at the centre of guidance for schools on gender-questioning children. We are clear that the Cass review’s conclusions and principles—the review was of course published since the issuing of the draft guidance—need to be reflected in it and that schools can be confident in that.

We know that concerned professionals, parents and children would welcome clarity on how schools should respond to young people who are questioning their gender. We have been carefully considering all the evidence as well as responses from the public consultation. It is essential that we take the time to get this right and to consider the best way to support schools. We will confirm next steps in due course, but our approach is clear: an evidence-led approach, clarity for schools, and children’s well-being at the centre of it.

Turning to Amendment 231 in the name of the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, this Government are committed to collective worship in schools. Schools are already required to promote spiritual, moral, social and cultural development within their curriculum and have flexibility to deliver non-religious assemblies. We plan to publish updated guidance later this year on collective worship in England to make expectations clear, including objective, pluralistic and critical delivery to give schools practical support.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition understand how crucial allergy safety is in schools, and access to adrenaline auto-injectors is pivotal. Centralising and co-ordinating policy across education establishments is a much-needed step that would standardise current voluntary safety measures such as the provision of AAIs and provide a universal level of access to all students. That is a principle in Amendment 209, referred to as Benedict’s law, that we support.

It would be remiss of me not to remind noble Lords: half of schools do not stock a spare auto-injector; 70% of schools do not have the recommended measures of spare pens, training and allergy policies, and individual healthcare plans in place; and 20% of fatal food anaphylaxis reactions in school-aged children or young people in England happen in schools.

This is a critical issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said that it was “basic”, the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, referred to it as “best practice”, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said that the cost of delay is “massive”. They are entirely correct.

We also support the principle behind the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. It makes sense that those contracted on school premises should predominantly follow the same policies as the schools themselves. This is all the more important when catering firms are involved, given the obvious heightened risk of allergic reactions to food.

While there should, as always, be an appropriate analysis of the impact on both the taxpayer and the affected firms, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition understand the great importance of these measures. We hope, as many noble Lords have hoped tonight, that the Government see the merit of focusing on this and agree that schools should be safe places for everyone—and that should be non-negotiable.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the House is probably keener to hear from the Minister than from me. I am grateful to noble Lords for their remarks. It was clarified that there are exceptions in the amendment around medical devices. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, of course, we want children with special educational needs to be independent and would be very happy to work with the noble Lord to look at that. But I agree completely with my noble friend Lady Spielman that we risk having one in three children in a classroom then being allowed to have a phone, which I know is not what the noble Lord wants either. With that, along with the rest of the House, I would like to hear from the Minister.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government recognise concerns about the impact of mobile phones in schools, including the distraction from learning and the wider effects on children’s well-being. For this reason, we have always been clear that mobile phones have no place in schools.

It was clear from the examples given by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and the noble Lord, Lord Nash, that schools can deliver this. Research from the Children’s Commissioner shows that the overwhelming majority of schools already have policies in place that limit or restrict the use of mobile phones during the school day. However, it is also clear that the old mobile phones in schools guidance inherited from the previous Government did not deliver the clarity or consistency that schools need to implement mobile phone-free schools.

Amendment 215 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, requires schools in England to prohibit the use and possession of smartphones during the school day. As I say, the vast majority of schools already have policies in place that restrict access to mobile phones. The problem, therefore, is one of clarifying the guidance and enforcing those policies. That is why we have acted to address both. On Monday 19 January we published strengthened guidance which is clear that all schools should be mobile phone-free environments by default for the entire school day and pupils should not have access to their devices. That includes lessons, time between lessons, break times, lunchtime and in the loos. Not only does the strengthened guidance remove any ambiguity as to what effective prohibition of mobile phones looks like, but it includes practical, real-world case studies, demonstrating how schools are successfully implementing and sustaining these policies.

We know that schools need help. Where they do, they can get one-to-one support from the DfE’s attendance and behaviour hub lead schools, spread across all regions of the country, that are already effectively implementing mobile phone bans and have exemplary track records of supporting other schools to improve their practice. We have gone further: to reinforce the importance of effective implementation, Ofsted will, for the first time, check school mobile phone policy on every inspection, with schools expected to be mobile phone-free by default. It will check how effectively these policies are implemented when judging behaviour during inspections.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, questioned whether that would be effective, given the, in some cases, four-year gap between inspections. To be clear, Ofsted is one of the most powerful signals that the department gives to the sector on its priorities for teachers and leaders. While not all schools are inspected every year, the prioritisation of mobile phone policy in every inspection will improve policies across the system. From my time teaching, it is my experience—and I am sure it is the same for others across the House, including the former chief inspector—that Ofsted does not have to be on the premises to have an impact on what schools are doing.

We have already communicated these changes to the sector, but I make it clear that schools have our full support in taking this forward. This is a national reset on mobile phone use in schools, and we expect all school leaders, pupils and parents to follow this guidance. But this is not the end of the conversation, and we will continue to listen to the voices of parents, teachers and children on this issue.

I remind the House that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has announced that the Government will launch a short, sharp consultation on how to improve children’s relationship with social media and mobile phones. This will be a three-month consultation, with the Government reporting back in the summer. On the point made by my noble friend Lord Reid, as part of this the consultation will seek views on whether the mobile phones in schools guidance should be placed on a statutory footing, working through the evidence and bringing any proposals forward once these views have been taken into account.

Amendment 215 addresses the issue in a way that the Government cannot support. It is unclear what “possession” is meant to cover. If we define possession too tightly, we create problems for schools. On the radio this morning, the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, was praising the use of, for example, sealed pouches as a way to prevent the use of phones but also promoting this amendment. Of course, many schools already use sensible, effective approaches such as sealed pouches, stopping pupils accessing their mobile phones throughout the school day, which is the intention of this policy, but an overly strict definition of possession could make those approaches non-compliant, and we should not undermine what already works.

Amendment 216 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is an amendment to Amendment 215, and requires schools to provide exemptions for pupils who use mobile phones as assistive technology. Our strengthened guidance is clear: exceptions to the mobile phone policy may be required for children with specific special educational needs, disabilities or medical conditions. That includes users of healthtech or assistive technology. For example, pupils with diabetes might use continuous glucose monitoring with a sensor linked to their mobile phone to monitor blood sugar levels. Where mobile phone use allows pupils to manage their medical condition effectively, our guidance ensures that these cases are protected. Where school leaders need to make additional exceptions to or flexibilities in their policies based on a child’s individual needs, we trust them to do so.

For these reasons, and given the wider action the Government are taking to improve children’s relationship with technology, mobile phones and social media, I hope—although I do not have a lot of hope—that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Bull) (CB)]

My Lords, I remind the House that the Question before the House is on Amendment 216 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, so we must first deal with that before we return to Amendment 215.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

I will speak very briefly to Amendment 217. I know from my own teaching experience—and anyone who has seen the film documentary “Idris Elba: Our Knife Crime Crisis” will know—exactly how important it is that permanently excluded children are folded into some support system before they are lost to crime or worse. This is a very simple amendment that could save young lives.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The amendments in group 8 relate to the school exclusion framework. We firmly believe that every pupil, no matter their background, deserves to learn in a safe, calm and orderly classroom. Supporting good behaviour in schools is essential to achieving this, and we will continue to back teachers and school leaders in maintaining high standards.

Amendment 217, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to require local authorities to assess the needs of children under the Children Act 1989 whenever a pupil is permanently excluded. Section 17 of the Act already places a duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need. Naming specific groups risks narrowing eligibility and limiting local flexibility.

The Working Together to Safeguard Children guidance makes clear local authorities and partners should identify emerging problems and unmet needs, including for children facing exclusion.  Our reforms to family help and multi-agency child protection, supported by over £500 million this year, will embed education experience within multi-agency teams. We are introducing a duty on safeguarding partners to ensure education settings are represented at both strategic and operational levels.

Amendments 218 and 219, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seek to introduce a presumption against reinstating pupils who have been excluded twice and for extremely serious behaviour such as possession of a knife or offensive weapon, assaulting a teacher and sexual assault. To be absolutely clear, no child or teacher should ever feel unsafe at school. Safe, calm and orderly environments are central to the Bill and to our support for schools and teachers, and head teachers must retain the ability to use appropriate sanctions, including exclusions, to maintain safety and good behaviour.

Governing bodies play an essential role in reviewing exclusions and deciding on reinstatement on a case-by-case basis. A blanket presumption of reinstatement would remove their ability to judge whether an exclusion was lawful, reasonable and fair, and could risk limiting a child’s access to mainstream education and opportunities for successful reintegration. For this reason, we do not have plans to change the guidance in the way the noble Baroness asked about. School leaders should use early intervention and multi-agency assessments as soon as concerns arise, to identify needs early and avoid escalation.

The Government are delivering a strong package of behaviour support, including new attendance and behaviour hubs targeted at the schools most in need, and plan to consult on an internal suspension framework to help schools use these sanctions effectively, minimise lost learning and keep children engaged in their education. The Bill represents a major strengthening of safeguarding legislation, reinforcing the importance of safety, well-being and behaviour in schools. Importantly, it aligns with wider action to protect young people from harm, including banning dangerous weapons, tightening online knife sale controls and expanding programmes that prevent youth violence.

For all these reasons, we do not consider that removing governing boards’ discretion through a presumption against reinstatement is necessary or appropriate, and I hope the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the Minister for those remarks. They are slightly disappointing, and certainly the Government’s reforms are doing an awful lot of heavy lifting. I am not going to press my amendments, but it is with a heavy heart, particularly in relation to Amendment 217. This is not about narrowing the scope of Section 17 of the 1989 Act; it is about saying that these children are children in need, almost by definition, so let us make sure we look at it systematically. But I hope that the Government’s reforms will work the miracle that the Minister believes they will. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 217.

--- Later in debate ---

Picking up the microbiome image given by the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, these amendments are the kombucha, the kimchi and the kefir of edtech. They are the prebiotics and the probiotics: they are the healthy measures to improve the health of our classrooms. I hope the Minister will agree.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As we turn to the amendments in group 11, which are, of course, on educational technology, I thank noble Lords for their focus during this debate on safety, effectiveness and fairness. The Government share these aims. We want schools and parents to have confidence in the tools being used and innovation that supports learning while protecting pupils’ data and well-being.

We are clear that technology used in our schools must support learning and children’s development. It must not expose children to harm, undermine trust or operate without appropriate safeguards. The question before the House is not whether action is required—action is already under way—but how we ensure that protections are robust and enforceable and can keep pace with rapid technological change.

I turn first to Amendment 227, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, and Amendment 238, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, which seek to strengthen assurance that education technology is safe, effective and permitted for use in schools through the introduction of a statutory mechanism. At this point, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, for the work that he was talking about with DfE to develop important new qualifications, which we are grateful for and which the Government will certainly want to maximise the use of.

However, the amendments before us address that concern—the concern about whether tech is safe and effective—in a way that the Government do not believe is appropriate and cannot support, because they do it by treating safety and educational effectiveness as the same regulatory question when they are not. There is a clear distinction between product safety and pedagogical efficacy, and it is essential that we respond to each in the right way. If a tool is not safe, it should not be used in schools at all.

That is why we have already introduced robust safety standards for generative AI, which will set clear expectations for tech companies to follow. That said, providing clarity for schools is key, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for providing additional information on this point earlier this week. We are committed to going further, and we are therefore considering the benefits of consulting on a certification scheme to apply to generative AI tools in education.

Product safety cannot be achieved through a rushed government-compiled register but must be delivered through legally robust and independent certification. Educational effectiveness is different. Whether a tool improves learning is not a universal yes or no question, and it cannot be certified in the same way as safety. What works will vary by age group, subject, setting and approach, and it will evolve over time as the technology itself develops. Attempting to fix this through rigid certification risks undermining professional judgment and stifling innovation without delivering better outcomes for children.

That is why we are working with AI and education experts on new benchmarks for AI use in education, including tests to make sure that products meet national expectations for pedagogy. Our EdTech Evidence Board is developing a clear, publishable framework for assessing effectiveness, including expectations on pedagogy, evidence, outcomes, equity and inclusion, and clarity for schools.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, for clarifying the intent of his Amendment 227 by stating that he was looking for a minimum list of approved tools. I believe that our work on evidence will precisely support that aim.

We are also investing £23 million to expand the edtech test bed into a four-year programme to test technology and AI tools in real classroom settings with independent evaluation. This approach provides schools and colleges with confidence in what works without locking them into a static list. Our aim is to establish a credible pedagogical bar that is fair to suppliers, usable for schools and capable of evolving, rather than a rigid statutory regime that would quickly fall behind technological change.

Amendment 239, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, focuses on filtering and monitoring systems and seeks to increase confidence, through certification, that products used in schools are effective and appropriate. As I noted in Committee, schools are already expected to have filtering and monitoring systems in place through the Keeping Children Safe in Education framework. However, we agree that more can be done to provide clarity and confidence. I am therefore pleased to confirm that the Government will consult on a scheme to certify filtering and monitoring products used in schools, which would reinforce safety standards and allow schools to be confident that products are aligned with them. Alongside this, we have strengthened our guidance to make it clear that filtering solutions must be designed so that illegal blocklists cannot be disabled, overridden or altered. Consulting will allow us to develop a certification scheme that is proportionate and effective in education settings. We therefore do not feel that a statutory obligation is necessary at this stage.

Amendment 236, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raises concerns about on-screen homework and proposes a parental right to exemption. We share the principle that no child should be disadvantaged due to a lack of access to devices, but we remain clear that decisions about homework are best made by schools in partnership with families and reflecting local circumstances. Many schools already work closely with parents to understand access issues and provide alternatives where needed. We do not have evidence to suggest that legislating in this way would be proportionate or beneficial.

There has been considerable debate about screen time, but it is important not to conflate personal and educational use. When applied well, education technology can improve outcomes and accessibility and help pupils, including neurodiverse children, to engage more confidently. The aim is not more screen time but better learning delivered safely. The Government’s recent announcement of £1.6 million for assistive technology lending libraries reflects this commitment to inclusion, particularly for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities.

I turn to Amendment 235, from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on the reception baseline assessment. We share the belief that assessment should be appropriate and fair. However, a blanket prohibition or rigid requirement in primary legislation would remove needed flexibility, including where digital approaches support accessibility while non-digital options still remain available. As we discussed at some length in Committee, the reception baseline assessment includes some digital elements, but it also uses verbal responses and small toys, with no expectation of prior screen use; a paper-based version remains available in exceptional cases. The revised version has been in development since 2018 and was trialled extensively with pupils during that time. It has been in general use since September, and we have received positive feedback from teachers on pupil engagement. For these reasons, a restrictive legislative approach is not necessary, and the proposed timescales would be impractical and expensive.

Amendment 234, from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to ensure that secondary education exams are completed by hand rather than with a digital device, subject to specific exceptions. Ofqual is currently consulting on how on-screen exams should be regulated. It is proposing a highly controlled and limited introduction, with rigorous safeguards. The vast majority of exams would still be with pen and paper. Each exam board could submit proposals to introduce a maximum of two new on-screen specifications, but not in the highest-entry subjects. We have worked closely with Ofqual to consider the potential benefits and risks. Ofqual has also published the evidence base that has informed its consultation. Research shows that on-screen exams may deliver a range of potential benefits over the long term, including improving assessment validity, accessibility and efficiency. We therefore remain of the view that it is not appropriate to fix a highly restrictive policy position in legislation, but of course we encourage interested parties to respond to Ofqual’s consultation.

Finally, Amendment 240 from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, seeks to require the Information Commissioner’s Office to produce an edtech code of practice for children’s data. We fully agree on the importance of strong protections for children’s data. At Second Reading of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology confirmed that the Information Commissioner would be required to publish codes of practice for AI and automated decision-making, followed by a dedicated edtech code, and this sequencing is deliberate. Developing the AI code first will inform the edtech code, providing greater clarity and coherence for organisations, schools and families. Accelerating the edtech code ahead of this work would risk duplication and confusion rather than strengthening protections.

I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on 16 December to confirm that regulations will be laid requiring the Information Commissioner to produce these codes, beginning with the AI code and followed by the edtech code. I am pleased that work on the AI code is already in progress. I am also aware that DSIT officials have been in touch with the noble Baroness to discuss the development of the regulations that will require the ICO to prepare the AI code, and we would welcome her support in getting those regulations right. We share the same aims, but we do not believe that legislating in the way proposed would deliver better outcomes for children or schools. The Government’s approach is proportionate, evidence-led and capable of adapting as technology evolves. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, she talked, in relation to my Amendment 236 and homework, about the Government’s concerns about equality of access to devices at home, but she did not address the point I raised about the increasing number of parents who want to have a screen-free evening at home, or screen-free weekends as a household. What would she say to those parents?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

In those cases, I would expect every school thinking about its homework policy to have engaged with parents on the details of how that homework policy was going to work, but I think what was proposed by the noble Baroness in this amendment would limit the ability of schools to have those conversations and to make the decisions that were appropriate for them. It is on that basis that we are resisting it.

[Lord Tarassenko (CB)]

Very briefly, given the time, I just want to reassure noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that none of the amendments—not just mine—stops the use of edtech; they introduce rules for its development and introduction into schools. For example, the whitelist is an irreducible minimum to ensure that all students in schools in England would have access to this minimum set of tools. Of course, schools will be entirely free to add to the whitelist appropriate websites that they felt would help the educational attainment of their children. So it is not about stopping but enabling, through a minimum set of tools, a whitelist, and about schools being able, if they felt it was appropriate, to add to that whitelist.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his two amendments. The establishment of a national body is a factor that needs to be considered in the important and pressing issue of special education needs and disabilities. There is certainly the argument for a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence equivalent for SEND. But the most important point, in our view, is that, whatever the approach taken in the Government’s forthcoming White Paper, it is based upon firm evidence.

The same principle applies to the noble Lord’s other amendment, which would introduce an obligation to deliver the national curriculum to children with special education needs and disabilities. Whatever approach is taken, it must also align with the existing evidence base.

An incredibly diverse and wide-ranging list of requirements is put on schools for children with education, health and care plans. Although it may be possible to deliver the national curriculum in line with these—we note that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, allows for disapplications—if the Government were to accept this, we would suggest an extensive pilot scheme to undertake a full, top-down and bottom-up approach, ensuring rigorous testing before introduction.

We hope, in line with the request of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the Minister will also be able to confirm that curriculum policy will feature in the coming White Paper—and please can we have a date?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Much as I try to satisfy Members in the House of Lords—for all the good it does me—no, you cannot have a date. Come on—everybody knows that you cannot have a date, even at one o’clock in the morning. But I will try to respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in his amendments.

Just to be clear, as a starting point, we share the noble Lord’s ambition for every child to have an education that meets their needs. We are determined to fix the SEND system and rebuild families’ trust by improving inclusivity and SEND expertise in schools, giving teachers the tools to identify and support needs early, and strengthening accountability for inclusion. The amendments the noble Lord has raised speak to the heart of our vision: an inclusive education system, built on strong leadership, evidence-based early intervention and high-quality teaching for every learner.

Amendment 228 seeks to place a new statutory duty on schools to adapt the national curriculum for individual pupils. We agree that children’s needs must be identified early and met well, but we fear that adding a new statutory requirement risks creating vague expectations around “sufficient” time and training, which could invite dispute rather than help schools.

Since Committee, we have continued constructive engagement with SEND organisations, including on identifying and supporting needs early and consistently, and on workforce development. We have recently announced £200 million to be invested over the course of this Parliament to upskill staff in every school, college and nursery, ensuring a skilled workforce for generations to come. This builds on at least £3 billion for high-needs capital between 2026-27 and 2029-30, to support children and young people with SEND or those who require alternative provision.

Amendment 229 proposes the establishment of a national body for SEND. We are aware of the challenges in the SEND system and how urgently we need to address them. However, as stated in Committee, we are concerned that a new body would simply create unnecessary bureaucracy. Our reforms will be set out in the forthcoming schools White Paper and will be underpinned by principles in line with the concerns the noble Lord has raised, and informed by continuing engagement with parents, teachers and experts, including through the recent national conversation on SEND. We are committed to supporting children with SEND through early identification, access to the right support at the right time, high-quality adaptive teaching and effective allocation of resources.

Noble Lords will not have too long to wait. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

Well, it was worth a try. At least we did not hear that when the moon is full and the wind is high, we shall get a report, but it sounded almost like that. I look forward to this when it happens and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, on these Benches, as is true across the House, of course we want our children to have the highest standards of mental health and well-being, and the data to support this, but, as in Committee, we do not support the specifics of these amendments.

On Amendment 233 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, presented this morning by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, we felt that the Minister’s response in Committee was a constructive way forward and substantially addressed the goals of the amendment, albeit perhaps not in the way that the signatories would prefer or advise. My reading of the Minister’s remarks was that the Government did commit to providing non-statutory guidance, including a standard set of questions and additional tools and resources to support implementation.

As in Committee, I am sympathetic to the gap in provision that Amendment 237 from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, seeks to address: in particular, the postcode lottery that she highlighted in her remarks this morning. I also recognise that it expressly prescribes the provision of qualified practitioners and implicitly prescribes that any interventions have a sound evidence base. As my noble friend Lady Spielman pointed out in Committee, too many interventions have been used in schools in relation to both mental health and well-being, which Amendment 242 from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, addresses, which have been shown subsequently to have caused more harm than good. That is clearly something we need to avoid.

I return to the point I made in Committee and that we have heard fervently debated on Report, including today: the single most powerful thing this Government can do to restore the mental health, well-being and sense of belonging of our children would be to keep smartphones out of school and prevent access to social media for the under-16s. Teachers, parents and their children will not thank this Government for being slow to act.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Well, as we approach nine hours of considering the 13 groups that we have got through today, I note—and I am not being churlish—that if everybody who stood up and said, “I will speak only briefly” spoke only briefly, we would have saved a reasonable amount of time.

However, let us move to the amendments. I start by assuring noble Lords that the Government are committed to improving mental health support for all children and young people, helping pupils to achieve and thrive in education. Of course, we are focused on, and have already made considerable progress in, providing access to specialist mental health professionals in every school. With that in mind, I turn to the amendments.

Amendment 233, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, and introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, intends to establish a national children’s well-being measurement programme.  We welcome the added emphasis that the measurement should remain voluntary for schools. While we are committed to supporting more schools to do this effectively, legislation is not necessary.

As stated in Committee, the Government have already committed to publish non-statutory guidance helping schools to measure and act upon factors related to well-being. To do that, we are working with measurement experts, including from the Our Wellbeing Our Voice coalition, to establish standardised questions for schools to ask pupils about key modifiable factors that impact their engagement in school life and their well-being, including how this can inform their approach to promoting and supporting mental health. This will enable benchmarking, aggregation, and sharing of data and practice between schools and with partners. We are exploring whether and how this data could be collected centrally to inform national policy. In the meantime, we will continue to publish annually the data we collect centrally on pupils’ well-being and experiences in school.

Amendment 237, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, would require the Secretary of State to ensure access to professionally accredited counselling or equivalent therapeutic support in schools, alongside government commitments to expand mental health support teams. As we said in Committee, this Government will expand mental health support teams from 52% coverage of pupils and learners at the start of April 2025 to 100% by 2029. The noble Baroness makes an important point about ensuring that we provide support for pupils whose needs are too complex for low-intensity interventions but do not meet the threshold for specialist child and adolescent mental health services. That is why we will pilot enhancements to mental health support teams, developed with a range of experts, including from the counselling profession, to support more complex needs such as trauma, neurodivergence and disordered eating.

These teams already integrate with a school’s existing well-being offer, which can include counselling. However, while there is good evidence that CBT used by the teams can deliver lasting benefits, more research is needed into the effectiveness, implementation and cost efficiency of counselling in schools. Many pupils also benefit from other in-school support. It is important that schools continue to have the freedom to decide what pastoral support to offer their pupils based on need, making the best use of their funding.

Lastly, Amendment 242, tabled by my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie, seeks to require statutory guidance for schools on whole-school approaches to mental health and well-being. As I said in Committee, existing statutory duties provide schools with a strong foundation to adopt whole-school approaches and secure the support that their pupils need. Our pupil engagement framework, to be published this year and developed with Mission 44, with support from other key stakeholders, will provide schools with guidance on whole-school approaches to pupil engagement and, in turn, well-being. Together with our ongoing work on measurement as part of this framework and the expansion of mental health support teams to 100% of pupils and learners, the Government are building on existing support in a consistent and equitable way—key components of my noble friend’s amendment.

Having described the progress that the Government are already making on the range of concerns that noble Lords have outlined, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate. It is never great to get the graveyard slot, particularly on an issue that is so fundamental to the success of the Bill, and to feel so time-constrained—but that is just life, is it not? I thank the Minister for outlining the progress that I acknowledge the Government are making in this area. I still think there is more to do, which is what these amendments press at, but I was grateful for her acknowledgement of the importance of the missing middle and the involvement of the counselling profession. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

244: After Clause 64, insert the following new Clause—
“Power to make consequential provision: Wales(1) The Welsh Ministers may by regulations make provision that is consequential on any of the following provisions of this Act—(a) section 11 (use of accommodation for deprivation of liberty);(b) section 12(5) (service of documents under Part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000);(c) section 20 (ill-treatment or wilful neglect: children aged 16 and 17);(d) sections 31 to 36 (children not in school).(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may contain only provision which would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if it were contained in an Act of the Senedd.(3) Regulations under this section may amend, repeal or revoke provision made by or under—(a) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru passed before this Act, or(b) an Act passed or made before, or in the same session of Parliament as, this Act.(4) Regulations under this section are to be made by Welsh statutory instrument (see section 37A of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 4)).(5) Except as provided by subsection (6), regulations made under this section are subject to the Senedd annulment procedure (see section 37E of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 4)).(6) Regulations made under this section that amend, repeal or revoke provision made by or under an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru, or an Act, are subject to the Senedd approval procedure (see section 37C of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 4)).(7) The power to make regulations under this section includes power to make—(a) supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision;(b) different provision for different purposes or areas.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would insert a new clause into the Bill conferring power on the Welsh Ministers to make provision that is consequential on certain provisions made by the Bill in relation to matters that are within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

246: Clause 67, page 127, line 28, leave out “regulations or an order;” and insert “—
“(i) regulations, or(ii) in relation to the amendments made to the Education Act 2002 by Schedule 3, an order;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that the reference in clause 67(1) to orders is only to orders under the Education Act 2002 (as amended by Schedule 3).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

249: Clause 67, page 128, line 6, after second “by” insert “Welsh”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my amendment to Clause 67 at page 128, line 21, would change references to a “statutory instrument” containing regulations made by the Welsh Ministers to a “Welsh statutory instrument” in consequence of changes made by the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Act 2025.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

253: Clause 67, page 128, line 21, after second “by” insert “Welsh”
Member’s explanatory statement
See my amendment to Clause 67 at page 128, line 6.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 9th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That the Bill be now read a third time.

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

My Lords, before dealing formally with the amendments at Third Reading of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, I will make a brief statement regarding legislative consent on this Bill.

During its development and parliamentary passage, the Secretary of State for Education has regularly corresponded and engaged with her devolved government counterparts, and this has been supported by continued engagement between officials. As a result, I can confirm that a legislative consent Motion has been successfully agreed in the Scottish Parliament and that the Senedd is in the process of agreeing a suitable date for the debate. This is to ensure that there is time to consider and discuss amendments that have been tabled and accepted by Your Lordships’ House on Report that also engage the consent process. Owing to the date that these amendments were tabled, it has not been possible for a further supplementary legislative consent Motion to be secured by the time of this statement. However, the Welsh Government have recommended that the Senedd gives consent to the Report amendments, and are committed to progressing the supplementary LCM as swiftly as possible.

More broadly, I am grateful to Ministers and officials in the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive for their positive and collaborative approach towards this legislation. We remain committed to sustained engagement with the devolved Governments for the remainder of the Bill’s passage as we look forward to its implementation. I beg to move that this Bill now be read a third time.

Clause 38: School uniforms: limits on branded items

Amendment 1

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I beg to move Amendment 1, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mohammed.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I recognise that Amendment 1, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, is a tidying-up amendment, consequential to his previous amendment on school uniform. While I am sure that the debate on the wider issue of school uniform will continue in the other place, we recognise that this amendment simply corrects a now redundant reference created by his prior amendment. For this reason, we are prepared to accept it at this stage, so that his proposed amendments can be considered together at the next stage.

I turn to the government amendments. Amendment 2 provides that regulations made by Welsh Ministers in relation to the mandatory meeting scheme for parents wishing to withdraw their child from school for home education will be subject to the Senedd’s approval procedure. This is an important and necessary correction which brings Wales into alignment with the position in England, where regulations made by the Secretary of State are subject to the affirmative procedure. As the Bill currently stands, no parliamentary procedure is attached to the Welsh regulations, and it is essential that this gap is addressed to ensure proper scrutiny and accountability.

Amendment 3 introduces legal definitions of “child” and “carer” for Wales. This is a small but important correction to ensure clarity in the provision and enable Welsh Ministers and the Secretary of State to require local authorities to record whether a child is a young carer on children not in school registers. As we discussed, young carers can shoulder responsibilities that impact their education. Understanding when a child is in that position could enable authorities to provide the right support. This amendment does not alter the policy intent of the Bill; it simply ensures that the Welsh legislative framework is complete and coherent. I trust that the House will agree that correcting this oversight strengthens the Bill and supports young carers.

Amendments 4, 5, 6 and 7 concern academy trust inspections. They make a small drafting adjustment to move the parliamentary procedure for regulations made under new Chapter 2A of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 to Section 182 of that Act, which already governs regulations made under the Act. The previous drafting inserted a bespoke section dealing with procedure for regulations into Chapter 2A, which conflicted with the existing Section 182. These amendments resolve a minor technical issue in the legislation, make no policy change and do not alter the level of parliamentary scrutiny that regulations will be subject to.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, we understand and accept these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

2: Clause 39, page 68, line 40, leave out from first “section” to the end and insert “569 of that Act (regulations)—
(a) in subsection (2A), after “section” insert “434B,”;(b) in subsection (2BB), after “section” insert “434B or”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for regulations made by the Welsh Ministers under new section 434B of the Education Act 1996 (inserted by clause 39) to be subject to the Senedd approval procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

3: Clause 40, page 72, line 19, leave out from “whether” to the end of line 21 and insert “—
(i) in the case of a child in England, the child is a young carer within the meaning of section 17ZA(3) of the Children Act 1989, as qualified by section 17ZB(3) of that Act, or(ii) in the case of a child in Wales, the child is a carer (within the meaning of “child” and “carer” given by section 3 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014);”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow information about whether the child is a carer (within the meanings given by section 3 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014) to be prescribed as information that may be included in the register of children not in school.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

4: Clause 59, page 131, line 1, at end insert—
“(A1) The Education and Inspections Act 2006 is amended in accordance with subsections (1) and (1A).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and my amendments to clause 59, page 131, line 2, page 137, lines 24 to 34, and page 139, line 20, would move provisions about parliamentary procedure for regulations under Chapter 2A of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (clause 59) to section 182 of that Act (regulations).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by expressing my gratitude to your Lordships’ House for the careful and constructive scrutiny of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. This Bill brings forward once-in-a-generation and much-needed reforms to our children’s social care and education systems, and will deliver tangible changes for young people. It delivers on manifesto commitments, including free breakfast clubs in primary schools and limits on branded uniform items, as well as raising standards in every classroom, ensuring fair access to good local schools and strengthening support for the most vulnerable children.

The opportunity to bring about meaningful, lasting change in the lives of children and families through legislation of this kind is rare and it has been a privilege to take this Bill through. I am grateful to all Members who brought their significant expertise to debates, with contributions drawing on backgrounds in education, children’s social care, health, data and local government, which have enriched our discussions and strengthened the legislation. Over Second Reading, 12 days in Committee and 5 days on Report, many noble Lords have spoken powerfully on behalf of children, as well as parents, carers, teachers and professionals working on the front lines, and that perspective has played a key role in refining the legislation.

I thank all noble Lords with whom I have engaged inside and outside the Chamber. Over the course of the Bill’s passage through this House, the Government had over 60 engagements with Peers and many more with external bodies. Noble Lords, including the Opposition Front Benches, have been exceptionally generous with their time, expertise and scrutiny, and those contributions have been valuable. I express my thanks in particular to my noble friend Lady Blake for taking the Bill through this House alongside me. Her support, expertise and unwavering dedication to children’s social care and education have been evident at every stage. I am thankful also to my noble friends Lady Anderson and Lady Twycross for their support in Committee. I am also grateful to the officials who have supported me throughout its passage, including my private office, the Bill team and the policy, strategy and legal teams. I extend my gratitude to the Whips’ team, parliamentary business and legislation team, and Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. This Bill has been vast in scope and, with 875 amendments debated, logistically complex.

Finally, I thank the clerks, doorkeepers and staff of the House. This Bill has frequently been debated late at night or until the early hours of the morning, and I appreciate their work greatly. I am confident that this legislation will greatly improve the lives of children and young people, and I look forward to further consideration as it moves to the other place. I beg to move.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I echo the Minister’s words in thanking all Members of the House who have been involved—some more than others—in the passage of this Bill and for the quality of scrutiny it received. I also thank the Ministers, their private offices and the Bill team for their time and engagement over the course of the Bill and the very detailed correspondence they sent us. I thank Beatrice Hughes and Dan Cohen in our research team for their support throughout the course of the Bill, which feels like quite a long time, and of course my noble friend the Earl of Effingham for his invaluable support.

However, if this Bill had been a weather forecast, I think it might have been for the west coast of Scotland in November. It has felt at times quite depressing, with a lot of rain and clouds, and only rare glimpses of sunshine. I say that because I fear that, in Part 1 of the Bill, the Government never really went to the root of the very real problem they were seeking to address. Conversely, in Part 2, we heard again and again the question of what problem the Government were actually trying to solve. The Minister talks about meaningful and lasting change. All of us in your Lordships’ House hope that she right, but I gently suggest that that is much more likely to be the case if the Government accept our amendments when it reaches the other place.

When we think about our debates on this Bill, Part 1, rather than trying fundamentally to address the shortage of foster and kinship carers in this country, focuses on reorganisation and regulation. Also, in Part 2, rather than learning from the successes of our free schools and academies and embedding those in the school system, the Government have sought to centralise and micromanage.

We had some glimpses of sunshine in the Bill. Certainly, working together across all Benches in this House has been an absolute privilege and a pleasure, and has unquestionably improved the Bill. For me, bright spots in Part 1 included tightening the involvement of health as a partner in the commissioning for children in receipt of a deprivation of liberty order, and in the role of the regional commissioning co-operatives. Another bright spot was requiring the Government to have clear evidence of impact before rolling out the multiagency child protection teams nationally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I will make a few comments and express my thanks to everybody involved in the Bill, particularly the Minister, who was always fully on her brief, who was prepared to listen—always— and to meet quite regularly, and who was a model as to how Ministers should take the House with them. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, who would look at you as though she agreed with everything you said, making you feel important. She often did not, but she actually looked at you and her eyes bore down on you.

I also thank all Members who got involved. It is a joy to be involved in a Bill on which we might have differences of opinion, but through which we all want to make a difference, from wherever we come. If I may say so, it is good to work on a school Bill which actually finishes and is not cut short mid-amendment.

Our team was one person, mainly: Ulysse Abbate. Ulysse was recently appointed to our team. He rushed around and was just an absolute joy to work with. In fact, he could have taken my job quite easily: he knew more about it than I did at the end of it.

I thank the Bill team and all those Members who spoke. I particularly thank Minister MacAlister for meeting me on two occasions. I also thank Minister Smith’s staff, who made a wonderful, fantastic team. The Bill will make a difference to the lives of children and parents; there are no two ways about that. I found Part 1 to be an amazing change from where we are.

As for Part 2, some people might argue that we did not go far enough, particularly on academisation. Some might argue that we went too far. Perhaps, therefore, the Government got it absolutely right. Personally, for me, that moment of sunshine—this is like “The Sound of Music”—was actually after 10 years. When this issue was first raised, I was jeered; I was told I was completely mad. It has taken us 10 years to get the issue of home education addressed; to reach an absolute understanding of how important it is to get home educators in the right frame. Their value is enormous.

As an example of the commitment of this House, on the fifth day, I think, we got to 11.30 at night, and normally at 11.30 at night, people’s energy levels sink—but did they? No, everybody suddenly sprang to life and there was renewed energy, and we finished at 1.30 in the morning. So that, again, shows the commitment.

Finally, I thank my colleagues on these Benches who worked with me: the new Lib Dem education spokesperson—my noble friend Lord Mohammed—and my noble friends Lord Addington and Lady Tyler, who made a lot of sacrifices to be here. My noble friend had paid for a very expensive fine arts course, and she gave up a number of sessions so that she could speak, with real vigour and determination, on those issues. Again, I thank everybody who made a real difference to the lives of children and families.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I always like to bring both the energy and the sunshine, and on that basis, I thank all noble Lords, and I beg to move.

Bill passed and returned to the Commons with Amendments.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.

2A: Because the Commons consider the Amendment to be unnecessary in light of existing statutory guidance about bringing a child protection plan to an end and steps already being taken to strengthen multi-agency decision making relating to child protection.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I shall speak also to Motions B, K and K1. In this group we will be debating amendments made in this House relating to child protection plans, multi-agency child protection teams and local authority consent for children not in school. For each, I will set out the rationale for why the Government cannot accept these amendments.

I will speak first to Motion A relating to Amendment 2, originally tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, regarding decisions to end child protection plans for under-fives when care proceedings are initiated or a care or supervision order is granted. When care proceedings begin, the child protection plan should not automatically be discharged. Statutory guidance is clear that a multi-agency meeting should take place to make this decision.

The Ofsted inspection framework reflects this statutory guidance and includes a focus on child protection. However, I note the noble Baroness’s concerns about children losing support at key transition points, potentially making them more vulnerable. This is why we will strengthen statutory guidance to make sure that the reason for the decision and any ongoing support is recorded.

We expect expert practitioners in multi-agency child protection teams to make decisions about plans ending. These teams bring fresh child protection expertise to concerns and will know the circumstances of the child well, so they are best placed to make these important decisions. While senior and experienced directors of children’s services should get involved only when needed, this is already provided for in the statutory framework.

Motion B relates to Amendment 5, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, requiring that the Secretary of State delay an evaluation of the families first for children pathfinder in Parliament before the multi-agency child protection team measures come into force.

Effective multi-agency child protection practice, which prevents tragedies and saves lives, needs to happen now. Delay is unacceptable. The Government will set out implementation plans covering the next phase of children’s social care reform following Royal Assent, including information about the planned pathfinder evaluation.

This summer, we expect to publish interim findings that are informing national rollout. Clause 3 also includes powers to make regulations about the functions of multi-agency child protection teams. The regulations will be subject to consultation and parliamentary scrutiny and will reflect learning from the pathfinders and national reform rollout. Regulations are not expected to come into effect until 2027, but the system is rightly changing now and we must not hinder this.

I turn finally to Motion K, relating to Amendment 44, and Motion K1, relating to Amendment 44B in lieu, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. The amendment in lieu would require parents to obtain permission from their local authority before withdrawing their child from school for home education if their child is currently, or has ever been, the subject of care or supervision order proceedings, unless the child has since been adopted. We share the noble Baroness’s commitment to ensuring that every child is safe. However, we remain unconvinced about extending the consent requirement further. Children who are the subject of such proceedings would almost always fall within existing protections, either through a child protection plan triggering the Government’s proposed consent measure or as a looked-after child whose education is already determined by the local authority through their care plan.

We recognise concerns about children previously subject to proceedings potentially being vulnerable. That is why we have extended the consent requirement to children who have been on a child protection plan in the last five years and extended the school attendance order power to these children who are already being home educated. This approach maintains the high threshold for consent to child protection action, recognises that children may be vulnerable if they are withdrawn from school within five years after a plan ends, and balances this with the reality that families can and do change.

On Report, the noble Baroness referenced the review into the tragic death of Sara Sharif. We have already amended the Bill to respond directly to its recommendations. We will pilot mandatory meetings before any child in a pilot area can be removed from school for home education, and the new power for local authorities to request to visit home-educated children in their homes will benefit the children that the noble Baroness is most concerned about. Importantly, our wider children’s social care measures also strengthen information sharing, improve early preventive support, create new multi-agency child protection teams and strengthen the role of education and childcare settings in local safeguarding arrangements. It is for these reasons that the Government disagree with these amendments. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5A.

5A: Because learning from the Families First for Children Pathfinder will be published and inform regulations under clause 3 and the Amendment would unnecessarily delay implementation of the legislative framework in the clause required to deliver multi-agency child protection teams.

Motion B agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 16, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 16A.

16A: Because the Commons does not consider the review proposed by the Amendment to be necessary in light of the ongoing public consultation on adoption and special guardianship support services.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move Motion C and shall speak also to Motions D, E, F and F1. In this group, we will be debating amendments made in this House relating to the adoption and special guardianship support fund, sibling contact, regional co-operation arrangements and deprivation of liberty. For each, I will set out why the Government cannot accept these amendments.

I will speak to Motion C, relating to Amendment 16, originally tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, concerning a proposed review of the per-child funding level for the adoption and special guardianship support fund. The Government have confirmed £55 million for the support fund in 2026-27, with continuation into 2027-28. A 12-week public consultation on adoption support is under way, seeking evidence on what best supports adopted children and outlining eight proposals for a future system. Introducing the review proposed in the amendment could potentially inhibit balanced consideration of the consultation responses. We therefore cannot accept this.

Motion D relates to Amendment 17, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield. As we have previously set out, the amendment will not alter the duties placed on local authorities. There is already a requirement in regulations for local authorities to record in the care plan any contact arrangements made between a looked-after child and any sibling with whom they are not living. This is why the Government do not support this amendment.

Instead, we propose Amendment 17B in lieu, to add siblings to Section 34 of the Children Act 1989. This will make clear the expectations on local authorities to allow reasonable contact between children in care and their whole, half and step-siblings where this is consistent with their welfare: a duty that already exists for contact been children in care and their parents. I acknowledge Liberal Democrat Peers’ constructive engagement, including from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, and acknowledge in the other place the honourable Member for South Shields, Emma Lewell. Both have tirelessly campaigned for many years on the importance of relationships for children in care, and I therefore urge noble Lords to support this amendment.

Motion E relates to Amendment 19, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham. This amendment seeks to include integrated care boards in regional co-operation arrangements. The Government agree that health partners play a vital role in improving outcomes for looked-after children. However, existing duties under Sections 10 and 16E, 16G and 16J of the Children Act 2004 already require local authorities to co-operate with relevant partners, including ICBs, to promote children’s well-being. These duties will continue to apply to authorities entering into regional co-operation agreements. Following helpful discussions on Report, and with the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals, it is clear that these duties could be implemented more consistently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 102, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 102A.

102A: Because the Amendment imposes inappropriate restrictions on the scope of the adjudicator’s powers to determine school admission numbers under clause 56 and the clause already provides for regulations to make provision about the matters the adjudicator must consider when making a determination about a school’s admission number.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend has already spoken to Motion L. I beg to move.

Motion L1 (as an amendment to Motion L)

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 20th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 38 in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 38J to 38P.

38J: Page 122, line 38, at end insert the following new Clause—
“Power to require internet service providers to prevent or restrict access by children to internet services
(1) The Online Safety Act 2023 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 214 insert—
“Power to require internet service providers to prevent or restrict access by children to internet services
214A Power to require internet service providers to prevent or restrict access by children to internet services
(1) The Secretary of State may, for the purpose of protecting relevant children from a risk of harm (including harm presented by content), make provision by regulations requiring providers of specified internet services—
(a) to prevent access by relevant children to specified internet services which they provide, or to specified features or functionalities of such services;
(b) to restrict access by relevant children to specified internet services which they provide, or to specified features or functionalities of such services.
(2) “Relevant child” means a child who is of, or under, a specified age (and different ages may be specified for the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1)).
(3) The provision that may be made by regulations under this section includes provision—
(a) about the steps that must or may be taken by a provider for the purposes of complying with a requirement imposed by the regulations;
(b) about the monitoring of compliance with a requirement imposed by the regulations;
(c) about the enforcement of a requirement imposed by the regulations.
(4) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (1)(b) includes, for example, provision requiring a provider of an internet service to—
(a) limit the amount of time per day, or over the course of a specified period, for which relevant children may access the service or a specified feature or functionality of the service;
(b) limit the times of day at which relevant children may access the service or a specified feature or functionality of the service;
(c) restrict access by relevant children to a service or to a feature or functionality of a service by virtue of which—
(i) a user of the service could receive unsolicited contact from a person who is not known to the user;
(ii) a user of the service could encounter live oral communications or live video generated directly on the service, or uploaded to or shared on the service, by a person who is not known to the user;
(iii) a person who is not known to a user of the service could encounter live oral communications or live video generated directly on the service, or uploaded to or shared on the service, by the user;
(iv) a person who is not known to a user of the service could identify the actual or approximate location of the user.
(5) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (3)(c) includes provision for a requirement to be an enforceable requirement for the purposes of Chapter 6 of Part 7.
(6) In making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to the fact that children of different ages may be affected by an internet service, or a feature or functionality of an internet service, in different ways.
(7) Regulations under this section may—
(a) make provision applying any provision of this Act (with or without modifications);
(b) make provision for exceptions to requirements imposed by the regulations;
(c) make provision about the time by which, or period within which, a thing must be done;
(d) make provision by reference to standards, arrangements, specifications or technical requirements as published from time to time;
(e) confer functions on a person, including functions involving the exercise of a discretion, and make provision in connection with the procedure for exercising the functions;
(f) make consequential provision.
(8) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (7)(f) may amend or repeal primary legislation.
(9) OFCOM must, so far as reasonably practicable—
(a) carry out such research or provide such advice as the Secretary of State may request for the purposes of making regulations under this section, and
(b) do so by such time, or within such period, as the Secretary of State may specify in the request.
(10) As soon as reasonably practicable after providing advice under subsection (9), OFCOM must publish the advice.
(11) In this section—
“primary legislation” means—
(a) an Act of Parliament,
(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,
(c) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru, or
(d) Northern Ireland legislation;
“specified” means specified, or of a description specified, in regulations under this section.”
(3) In section 225 (parliamentary procedure for regulations), in subsection (1), after paragraph (e) insert—
“(ea) regulations under section 214A(1),”.”

--- Later in debate ---

38P: Title, line 9, after “schools;” insert “about preventing or restricting access by children to internet services; about the age of consent in relation to processing of a child’s personal data in relation to information society services;”

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

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I shall also speak to Motions A1, A2, D and D1. In this group, we will debate amendments on restricting social media for under-16s, digital literacy in the school curriculum and mobile phones.

I turn first to Motion A1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, which disagrees with Amendments 38J and 38P and proposes new Amendments 38Q and 38U. I will also speak to Motion A2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nash. Amendment 38Q would require social media services to set their own minimum age of access based on their children’s risk assessment under the Online Safety Act. Amendment 38R would amend UK GDPR, so that the digital age of consent is raised from 13 to 16 for some social networking services. Motion A2 seeks to amend government Amendments 38A to 38C, requiring the Secretary of State to restrict under-16s from accessing user-to-user services or to restrict specific features or functionalities when making these regulations.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley and Lord Nash, and other noble Lords for their sustained commitment on these vital issues. Let me be clear that it is a commitment that the Government share; protecting children online is as much a priority for this Government as it is for noble Lords. The question is not whether but how and what action will be taken and who is involved in making sure that that action is right. It is to facilitate this that the Government launched their consultation in March.

I am pleased to see that the noble Lord’s revised amendment considers the variety of measures on which we are seeking views through the consultation. It acknowledges that there are numerous approaches to securing the safety and well-being of our children: a blanket ban for under-16s to access social media; restricting specific “addictive” features or functionalities and risky features; and raising the digital age of consent under the UK GDPR. This is what our consultation is focused on. This shows that the noble Lord agrees with the Government that it is important that we take not only swift action but the correct action. Let me be clear that the government consultation, and the legislative means in the Government’s amendment, is the most responsible way to get this right, ensuring effective outcomes that will last.

The Government’s amendment allows for clear and decisive action. Amendment 38Q, while well intentioned, may give too much discretion to services in setting age restrictions without considering the evidence from the Government’s consultation. Amendment 38R would change the age of digital consent in the UK GDPR only for social networking services, whereas the Government’s consultation asks whether this change should also apply to other online services.

--- Later in debate ---

As the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, said, there is no distinction in the Government’s approach between smartphones and brick phones or dumb phones. The Government talk about how keen they are to give headteachers discretion in this area —not something they were very keen on in every other amendment to this Bill—but the distinction is really important, because it has a bearing on when children first get a smartphone. Parents want to be able to contact their children on the journey to and from school, but they do not need a smartphone for that, so there needs to be distinction in the guidance as well. The Government are obviously very resistant to accepting an opposition amendment, even when headteachers are calling for them to do so. I do not know why headteachers, parents and children would not thank them if they saw sense and accepted this amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, on Motions A, A1 and A2, the Government, as I think I made clear in opening this debate, recognise the concerns raised in this House and the strength of feeling among parents about protecting children online. As I and other Ministers have said, we share that commitment. This is a complex issue, with a range of views, expressed once again today during this debate, about how it is best approached.

Points were made by noble Lords about enforcement, the development of the online safety regime, and other issues that my noble friend Lady Lloyd and others in DSIT will continue to think carefully about. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, slightly took us back to discussions that we had earlier on the issue of edtech. I am happy to provide him with further information, expanding on the information that I gave in Committee, about the approach that the Government are taking, particularly to develop the evidence around what is and is not appropriate use of technology in the classroom. Given the strength of feeling, we have been clear in government that it is important that we act not only quickly but in the right way.

The cases in the US, as commented on by noble Lords, have rightly and understandably raised interest. While we do not comment on foreign court judgments, we welcome international efforts to strengthen online safety and will want to learn from what is happening around the world. However, I note that the UK has the most robust online safety framework in the world, with a regulator empowered to issue fines of the same order of magnitude or larger. That is why the Government have announced that we are going to take further action to protect children’s well-being online through our consultation.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and others have identified, there is a range of action in different countries; I agree that it is not the same action in different countries. I was fortunate, before I was confined to my bed before recess, to go to New York, to the Commission on the Status of Women, where I attended a useful session with a focus on the action taken by different countries to protect children online. What I thought was notable was the wide range of different approaches being taken in different countries—different ages, different scope and different speeds at which it was happening. We cannot simply look abroad to find a consistent approach. That is why, while watching very closely what other countries are doing, we want to be confident that what we introduce here works and works for all children, including the most vulnerable. That is why testing options now, taking evidence from families themselves and putting in place the legislative powers to act quickly once the consultation closes is the right thing to do. It means that we can move in months, not years.

As has been said on numerous occasions, the Government’s consultation looks beyond a simple social media ban to a wider range of harms, from addictive design to time spent online, allowing for a more comprehensive and effective response with long-lasting outcomes. It considers at least some of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. In other developments, as I outlined in my opening speech, the Government are taking action through the curriculum, supporting schools to enable children and young people to be much clearer about media literacy and the nature of what they will encounter online at some point, whenever that may be in their lives, when they have access to it. This is clearly an important development, both in the curriculum and in the way in which our schools are teaching.

We have listened to concerns about pace, which was another important theme of the debate today. The argument is that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, would enable faster movement, because we would not need to consult. The Government have laid the groundwork to act swiftly on the outcome of our current consultation without the need for lengthy primary legislation. It is a short, sharp consultation, which we believe is the right thing to do to make sure that we take the right approach. I reiterate that we have been clear that it is not a question of if but how we act. In addition, the government amendment would allow any subsequent regulations to capture a wider range of harmful features and functionalities and to tailor measures to where harms are actually occurring. We are committed to working as quickly as possible to deliver additional protections. We will not wait years, as with the Online Safety Act. We are determined to get it right and we will not compromise on what is best for our children’s future.

There is concern about scope—I think I have responded to some of that concern—and scrutiny. That is why we have tabled legislative powers to act swiftly on the basis of evidence, alongside a clear commitment in the Bill to report to Parliament within six months. We have made it clear that these powers can be used only for the purposes of protecting children. I hear the concerns raised by the noble Lords, Lord Mohammed and Lord Clement-Jones, about Henry VIII powers. To be clear, the power permits the Secretary of State to apply only existing parts of the Online Safety Act, with modification if needed, to ensure that the new regulations are effectively incorporated into the legal framework. The power would not allow this Government, or any future Government, to amend the existing online safety duties. We have been clear that the powers must have due regard to the effects on children of different ages and we have provided, as I outlined in my opening comments, for meaningful scrutiny, through engagement with relevant Select Committees, before any regulations are laid. We have been clear throughout, as demonstrated through these new legislative powers, how we will do this both quickly and effectively.

Moving on to the issue of mobile phones, it is important to reiterate that there has already been progress in the ways in which schools deal with mobile phones. We know that the majority of schools have policies that prohibit mobile phones, which is why we believe that Amendment 106 is unnecessary. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, slightly understated the changes that we have made to the guidance and the range of other measures that we have put in place around the guidance to support head teachers and to enable it to be implemented more quickly.

On the specific issue of whether “not seen, not heard” as an approach is appropriate, she is right—we have now taken that out of the guidance, and we would be willing to consider whether we should be stronger on that. The question that the noble Baroness asked was whether the use of guidance would make this impossible. She knows that the point of guidance, whether statutory or non-statutory, is to provide clarity in the broadest context about how we expect schools to operate in this area. It is a complex area where different schools and different head teachers might have different ways of achieving the outcome—we are all clear that there should not be access to mobile phones for children at any point in the school day—but it is not possible for me to say that it would be impossible, as she knows.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, both the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, and I raised the issue of smartphones as distinct from mobile phones. I understood the Minister to say that she would consider improving the guidance to make it clear that “not seen, not heard” was not in line with the spirit of the guidance. Will she also undertake to look at whether there is any refinement that could be considered in relation to smartphones?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, I will undertake to do that. I think it is interesting that that type of question is exactly the reason why the use of what will become statutory guidance is a more appropriate way of dealing with the nuances of this issue than the type of legislative ban on the face of the Bill that some people are arguing for. Because of that flexibility, I will undertake to do that.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her comments and response to the points raised. I thank all noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, for setting out clearly, alongside myself, our position on social media. I welcome the comments on having better clarity on the smartphones issue. I am not minded to test the opinion of the House on this occasion.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 41B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 41C.

41C: Because the Commons do not consider the Amendment to be necessary in light of periodic reviews to the statutory guidance about the cost of school uniform and because the Department for Education will continue to monitor the cost of school uniform and review the impact of the provisions about school uniform in the Bill.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion B, I shall speak also to Motions B1, C and C1. In this group, we will debate amendments relating to school uniforms and admissions.

Motion B relates to Amendment 41B. Motion B1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, seeks to review the effectiveness of a numeric limit on branded uniform within 12 months, alongside consideration of a monetary cap. His subsequent Motion would require a review of the effectiveness of measures to control branded item costs within 12 months.

I thank the noble Lord again for his championing of this issue. I know from our conversations how dear this issue is to him and how determined he is to make a difference for the children and families in his home town and up and down the country. I admire his commitment to thinking about the various ways in which we can achieve that. I make it clear that we share the aim of bringing down costs for parents, in particular for those who find it most difficult to afford school uniforms. This Government of course want to understand the impact that our manifesto commitment has made and whether it is meeting our shared objectives. As required with legislation, we will conduct a post-implementation review to capture the actual impact of the policy and consider any modifications that may be recommended.

Furthermore, the DfE has engaged with parents and school leaders extensively, over many years, on school uniform policies, including conducting detailed cost surveys. We will continue to monitor the impact of this measure, informed by the latest available evidence. For this reason, legislation on this is unnecessary.

The priority now is to provide certainty for schools and parents about the Government’s intent. We fear that these amendments might risk some uncertainty at a time when schools will be focused on implementing a numeric limit, which was not only a government manifesto commitment but was backed by both parents and the British public. A numeric limit is simple, transparent and enforceable, and we have committed to further strengthening existing statutory guidance to be clear that high-cost compulsory items should be avoided.

Motion C relates to Amendment 102, and Motion C1, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, insists on this amendment. Amendment 102 seeks to limit the circumstances in which the independent adjudicator can specify a lower published admission number—PAN—following an upheld objection. The Government are committed to ensuring that quality and parental choice are central to PAN decisions. Our amendment in lieu, introduced in the other place, makes this clear by ensuring that regulations will require the adjudicator to have regard to the impact on school quality and parental preference when specifying a school’s PAN following an upheld objection.

However, the noble Baroness’s amendment would create a blanket exemption for a significant proportion of schools, with no allowance for local circumstances such as the scale of demographic change. It would hinder sensible, community-focused decision-making. For example, in areas such as London, where most schools are performing well, significantly falling pupil numbers are impacting even good schools. Local authorities and schools are already taking tough decisions about closures, amalgamations and PAN reductions. This measure can and should be part of the solution to ensure that all pupils continue to have a choice of high-quality school places close to home.

Our amendment in lieu will be reinforced through new statutory principles that we intend to apply through secondary legislation, as set out in the policy paper we distributed before the recess. These will inform adjudicator decisions and help ensure that the reduction of good school places will only ever occur as a last resort.

As I emphasised, we are committed to ensuring that school quality and parental choice are central to any decisions on PAN, as set out in the published policy paper and reflected in the amendment passed in the other place, which we are considering today. That is why I can confirm that, should this House desire it, the Government will bring forward an amendment in the other place. This will reflect our commitment that school quality and parental choice must be at the heart of decisions on PAN by placing in the Bill a requirement on adjudicators to take account of school quality and parental preference before deciding a PAN following an upheld objective.

I also commit that we will require the adjudicator, through a mix of primary and secondary legislation, to consult key parties, including the admissions authority, the local authority and the relevant DfE regional director, on their views on alternatives to reducing the PAN before making a determination.

Collectively, this will ensure that reducing places at great schools is only ever a last resort and deliver a choice of good local school places for communities. We will continue to engage with stakeholders, including the Confederation of School Trusts, on this measure, including proposed changes to secondary legislation and the School Admissions Code. We will ensure that a robust decision-making framework is in place to protect high-quality education. The CST has welcomed the amendment made in the other place to the Bill as a step towards achieving that. I beg to move.

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gove (Con)]

My Lords, I support the points made by my noble friends Lady Barran and Lord Agnew. We are approaching the end of our consideration of this legislation, which comes as we all reflect on the huge gains that have been made by English schools in the last two decades. Improvements in schools in England have not been matched by schools in Scotland or Wales. This is not because students in Scotland and Wales are less intelligent or teachers less motivated but because the reforms that were introduced under Tony Blair and sustained during the coalition years and thereafter had two principles at their heart: greater autonomy for the front line and support for good schools to expand, so that their practice could be adopted by schools that were performing less well and so more students could benefit.

Of the two final elements that we are considering here, a government cap on the number of labelled items of school uniform that a school can require of its students is a preposterous piece of micromanagement, driven by the worst sort of virtue signalling. It is designed to convey that the Government are on the side of the poor, even as the measures on planned pupil admission numbers restrict the access of poor students to the very best schools.

When it comes to school uniform, we know from the voices of head teachers on the front line the benefits that an effective school uniform policy can have in contributing to ethos, discipline and a sense of inclusivity when our society is increasingly tribalised and polarised. Rather than listen to the testimony of head teachers—including the country’s very best head teacher, Katharine Birbalsingh, who has pointed out the folly of this policy—the Government insist that the best way of helping the poor is price capping and telling head teachers that they know better. All the evidence of history flies in the face of the course that the Government are setting. The fact that we have an absurd question about whether or not there should be an overall price cap or a price cap on particular items just shows the folly of going down this micro-interventionist line.

The second element that we are debating is pupil admissions numbers. I am grateful to the Minister for acknowledging that there are reasons why we should take account of quality and of the wishes of pupils and parents, but the most effective way of doing so is by not capping the growth of good schools. This legislation allows the Government and their agencies to cap the growth of those good schools to keep less-good schools open and provide a less-good education in the name of bureaucratic and local government convenience.

The purpose of school reform is to give pupils a better education, not to make life easier for bureaucrats or head teachers who are not performing their responsibility. Once again, I wonder what the point of the last two decades of education reform was if the current Government are going to look at those two decades, when politicians across parties were united in increasing autonomy at the front line and helping good schools to expand, and diminish the force of both those changes. It is not too late for the Minister, who played a very distinguished role in the Governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, to say to the current Prime Minister and the current Education Secretary that it is time to learn the lesson from those who went before, rather than repeating the mistakes of a socialist and interventionist past.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, several noble Lords have spoken in this small debate. I particularly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Gove, to the consideration of the Bill. I am not sure that he contributed in the very many sessions we have had up until this point, but better late than never. As always, he had something interesting to say, even if I think he is wrong and disagree with him.

Let us focus, as this group does, on Motion B and Motion B1 on Lords Amendment 41D, which seeks to require a review of the effectiveness of the limit on branded items of school uniform, with particular reference to introducing a monetary cap. As I said in my opening speech, we believe that these amendments are necessary, and I commit to the noble Lord that we will monitor the impact as we implement the limit. That does not need to be in legislation, and the amendment risks creating some uncertainty for schools and parents at a time when schools will be implementing the limit.

For noble Lords’ information, the limit was included in the Government’s manifesto, is widely welcomed by parents and others, and is focused on what we believe is the simplest way to deliver this, which is a limit on branded items in school uniforms. We have been clear about our concerns with a cost cap, which is not the proposal here, and do not believe it would be the most effective way to reduce costs for parents. Our proposal for a numeric limit is clearer and simpler, will deliver savings more quickly and is overwhelmingly backed by parents.

On the discussion about admissions, several noble Lords have spoken to Motion C, relating to Amendment 102, and Motion C1, which insists on it. Amendment 102 seeks to limit the circumstances in which the adjudicator can specify a lower published admissions number. This proposition in this legislation is very much a function of the time, in terms of demography, that we find ourselves in. If we were in a position where the number of children in our schools was growing then all of us—as was the case with the previous Labour Government—would be very relaxed about allowing good schools to expand with no control or very little limitation, but that is not the situation we find ourselves in.

As I suggested in my opening speech, the fall in the number of children coming through the system will create difficult decisions to be made in some areas. They will make the local authority responsibility to ensure a sufficiency of places more complex and risk a situation where good schools are forced to close because of a failure to be able to consider the impact of falling numbers across a range of schools. That is the context in which we are introducing this measure.

This Government support good schools expanding where that is right for the local area. In fact, this measure may help to secure more places in high-performing schools in areas where they are needed, but the noble Baroness’s Motion does not allow sufficient nuance to ensure that local circumstances can be taken into account, especially in this time of changing demographics. Our amendments in lieu will ensure that an independent decision can be taken by the adjudicator, in the local context, and with school quality and parental preference at its heart.

I will respond to a few of the charges made by noble Lords opposite. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is understandably concerned that local authorities might misuse this power to reduce the number of places at academies. To be clear, and I know that the noble Baroness knows this, local authorities will not be able to set an academy’s PAN. The schools adjudicator, not the local authority, will be the final decision-maker. The adjudicator is independent and impartial, and will come to their own independent conclusion on whether to uphold an objection to the PAN.

The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, suggested—given his experience, including his ministerial experience, I am not sure that he meant this—that we were inventing a new set of bureaucrats, in his and others’ words. That is not true. The school adjudicator system has existed and played a very similar role throughout the whole period of the previous Government and the period of the previous Labour Government. This is not something new. What is more, of course, the statutory School Admissions Code and the new regulations that we have committed to will set out what the adjudicator must consider where they uphold an objection and subsequently set the PAN for the school.

As reflected in our amendment, school quality and parental choice will be central considerations and ensure that this power is not used to prop up failing schools. School adjudicators, as I have said, have existed for some time and are independent. They have significant experience of considering objection cases and already consider both objections to PAN reductions and requests by maintained schools to vary their PAN downwards, in the light of a major change in circumstances. They possess considerable, extensive and comprehensive knowledge of the education system and they include MAT CEOs, head teachers, education lawyers and local authority directors, so the characterisation of them as bureaucrats is both factually inaccurate and unfair.

Our amendments would ensure, as I have said, that the independent, expert adjudicator—the system which has existed for very many years throughout several Governments—will be required, in making this decision, to have regard to the impact on school quality and parental preference. They also enable the Government to make regulations on other matters which the adjudicator must or must not take account of when deciding on a PAN.

I just reiterate the point that I made in opening. We recognise the point made by the Confederation of School Trusts about the requirement for the adjudicator to consider, in addition to quality and parental preference, the effectiveness and efficiency of the provision in an area and to consult key parties, including the relevant DfE regional director, on their views on alternatives to reducing a PAN before making a determination. It is clear that alternatives must have been considered as part of that process.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 102 in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 102C to 102G.

102C: Clause 56, page 118, line 33, leave out “may make provision”

--- Later in debate ---

102G: Clause 56, page 118, line 41, at end insert—
““relevant area”, in relation to a school, has the same meaning as in section 88F (see subsection (4) of that section).”

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.

Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 106 in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 106C to 106E.

106C: Page 50, line 25, at end insert the following new Clause—
“Guidance on use of mobile phones etc in schools in England
In Part 10 of the Education Act 1996, after Chapter 2 insert—
“CHAPTER 2A
GUIDANCE ON MOBILE PHONES ETC: SCHOOLS IN ENGLAND
550C Guidance on use of mobile phones etc in schools in England
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations require the appropriate person for a school in England to have regard to guidance described in subsection (2) in exercising functions relating to the conduct of the school.
(2) The guidance referred to in subsection (1) is guidance issued from time to time by the Secretary of State about registered pupils at schools having mobile phones and other personal interactive communication devices with them, and using them—
(a) during school hours, and
(b) on school premises.
(3) Subsections (4) to (6) apply for the purposes of this section.
(4) The “appropriate person” is—
(a) for the following kinds of school, the head teacher—
(i) a community, foundation or voluntary school;
(ii) a community or foundation special school;
(iii) a maintained nursery school;
(iv) a pupil referral unit;
(v) a school approved by the Secretary of State under section 342 (approval of non-maintained special schools);
(b) for any other kind of school, the proprietor.
(5) “School hours”, in relation to a school, means any time between the start of the first school session on a school day and the end of the last school session on the same day.

106E: Title, line 5, after “uniform;” insert “about guidance relating to use of mobile phones and other interactive communication devices in schools;”

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion D, and I beg to move.

Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)

Moved by

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 38V to 38X to Commons Amendment 38J, to which the Commons have disagreed, and do propose Amendments 38Z1 to 38Z9 to Commons Amendments 38J and 38K in lieu of Amendments 38V to 38X—

38Z1: As an Amendment to Commons Amendment 38J, in subsection (2), in inserted subsection (1)(a), leave out “features or functionalities” and insert “functionalities or other features”

--- Later in debate ---

38Z9: As an Amendment to Commons Amendment 38K, after subsection (2) insert—
“(3) If the first regulations have not been laid before Parliament before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (1A)—
(a) the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement explaining why, and
(b) before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which the statement under paragraph (a) is laid, the Secretary of State must lay the first regulations before Parliament.
(4) References in this section to the laying before Parliament of the first regulations are to the laying before Parliament of a draft of a statutory instrument containing the first regulations.”

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

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motions A1, A2, B, C and C1. With this group, we are debating amendments made in this House and the other place relating to a social media ban for under-16s, mobile phones in schools, and school admissions. Before getting into the details of the Motions and amendments before us, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Lloyd of Effra and myself, I thank all noble Lords who have engaged with us, ministerial colleagues and departmental officials throughout the Bill’s passage, and particularly during this rather fast-paced bit of ping-pong that we are now engaged in.

We are, hopefully, at the very end of this parliamentary Session and today brings us to the third round of ping-pong on this important Bill. That is beyond the point that the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord True, has generally seen as the juncture at which the unelected House should give way to the House of Commons. Noble Lords will be familiar with my history as a Member of and ministerial officeholder in the other place. That House has now spoken clearly on the matters before us on multiple occasions, endorsing the Government’s alternative proposals. I recognise, however, now that I am a Member of this place, that perhaps one advantage of noble Lords is their ability to scrutinise in detail and to push successfully for revision of government proposals. We have seen that throughout the course of consideration of this Bill. For example, for each of the issues that we are debating again this afternoon, the Government have recognised the strength of feeling expressed both here and in the other place, and we have responded on each one.

I will set out the important package of amendments that the Government have tabled to better protect children online. Once again, I am grateful for the constructive debate and committed engagement of noble Lords on this. In light of these discussions, we have strengthened our position, responding directly to your Lordships’ concerns about urgency, scope and parliamentary scrutiny. To put beyond any doubt that this Government will act in a way that responds to the concerns of your Lordships’ House, we have now gone further still. Under my Motion, we are placing a clear statutory requirement that the Secretary of State “must”, rather than “may”, act following the consultation. This removes any question of whether action will follow, while rightly allowing the detail of that action to be shaped by the evidence and by those most affected: the parents and children who have already responded to the consultation in their thousands.

The Government have now also committed to a timeline in the Bill. I am aware that there has been some commentary on this proposed timeline over the weekend, and I will therefore set out our position clearly to inform this debate. This Government are committed to moving as quickly as possible on this important issue. The timeline set out in our power is a ceiling, not a target. I recognise that there are particular concerns regarding the inclusion of an option for the Secretary of State to further extend the timeline. To be clear, this extension would be deployed only in exceptional unforeseen circumstances that prevent the Government meeting the original deadline. This is not a means of delaying regulation but a measure of last resort, to be used only if absolutely necessary. Noble Lords should therefore think of the implementation timescale as 24 months at the outside, rather than any longer, and remain mindful of my earlier remarks about this being a ceiling, not a target.

We have also listened carefully to concerns about harmful and potentially addictive design features. As noble Lords will know, the consultation seeks views on restrictions to addictive features and functionalities, and we have therefore tabled a further amendment specifically requiring the Secretary of State to have due regard to such features when deciding how to exercise the power, ensuring that these risks are properly addressed in the legislation.

I hope noble Lords will recognise that, taken together, these changes demonstrate the Government’s determination to proceed with this work and to do so in a manner that meets the concerns raised across both Houses. They provide certainty of action, a clear timetable and stronger recognition of harmful and addictive design. This is a balanced, evidence-led approach that protects children now and remains fit for the digital challenges ahead. I hope noble Lords will recognise this as a credible and responsible landing point, and support the Government’s amendment to deliver strong, effective and decisive action.

Motion A1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nash, insists on the same amendment that was brought to the House last week and would amend government Amendment 38J. It would require the Secretary of State to restrict under-16s from accessing user-to-user services or to restrict specific features or functionalities when making these regulations. I thank the noble Lord and his supporters again for their sustained focus on these vital issues. Protecting children online is not a point of difference between us; it is a shared priority that this Government are determined to deliver on. I welcome the progress already made and the constructive way in which the noble Lord’s amendment now reflects the Government’s approach. However, the government consultation and the legislative means in the Government’s amendment are the most responsible way to get this right, ensuring effective outcomes for children that will last.

The noble Lord’s amendment also specifies the age of 16 for restrictions. We cannot place an under-16 age limit in the Bill; doing so would require the Government to act before the evidence-gathering process is complete and would pre-empt the consultation. The consultation has already received more than 55,000 responses, demonstrating the public’s desire to shape the Government’s approach—and it is right that we listen to them. We recognise that many restrictions may be appropriate for age 16; there may also be specific interventions better suited for those over 16. Many Members of this House have rightly recognised that children of different ages interact with these services differently, which is why the government power now specifically acknowledges this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, in starting, I too recognise the contribution of my noble friend Lord Hacking. But I have to say, as a former Chief Whip in the other place, I am not quite of the same view that rebelling against your party is a sign of conscience. Nevertheless, I thank him for his service and comradeship to me since I have been in this House.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

Thank you very much.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Lord will remain busy even if he is not here. I look forward to hearing his views from afar, as I have heard them from behind me over recent years.

I turn now to Lords Amendments 38V and 38X. This Government have listened carefully to the concerns raised in both Houses and acted decisively to directly address them. I understand from today’s debate that there is a view among noble Lords that the Government may not yet have gone far enough. But it is of course important to remember that it is the passing of this Bill that will ensure that the progress that has been made will be on the statute book.

We are absolutely committed to protecting children online and doing it the right way. Throughout the whole Bill, that has involved discussion, consultation and engagement, including, earlier in its passage, with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, whom I had the pleasure of meeting on a range of issues, which we then looked at in detail in Committee.

Noble Lords have told us that the progress we need to make on this cannot be optional. We agree—that is why we have now put in the Bill the statutory requirement that the Secretary of State “must”, rather than “may”, act following the outcomes of the consultation. Please be reassured that, due to that change, action will follow. It must follow.

Your Lordships’ House also told us that this must happen at pace. That is why we have committed in legislation to a clear timeline. The six-month progress report must set out when regulations will be made. I will come back to that timing point in a moment.

The noble Lord, Lord Nash, reiterated his demand that the age of 16 is included on the face of the legislation. Again, I know there is not necessarily a consensus on whether this is the right thing to do, even among those who are not satisfied with how far the Government have gone already. I think the reason is that it pre-empts the outcome of our consultation, which seeks views on what restrictions on what features and at what age would be best.

We want to be confident that what we introduce works for all children, including the most vulnerable. That is why we are not waiting; we are testing options now, taking evidence from families, and, as I have said, we are putting the legislative powers in place to act quickly once the consultation closes. Our amendment allows for this outcome, but it also allows for a range of other outcomes, including, as I suggested earlier, for example, restricting some of the most harmful functionalities for children older than 16.

We rightly heard noble Lords’ concerns around the harmful and potentially addictive nature of many services. That is exactly why this is explicitly addressed in the consultation. However, in legislation, we have to be a little bit careful about the terms we use. Addiction, for example, is a medical term. A specific diagnosis of social media addiction has not been medically recognised and is a contested concept. If we are not careful, using this term in the legislation is likely to create a high bar for the exercise of the power to tackle the problem of addictive design as it is colloquially understood. Our drafting is intended to specifically capture features which might cause children to overuse services in a risky or harmful way. The Secretary of State must have due regard to these features in exercising the power.

We have gone even further, with a legislative commitment that the Secretary of State must now have regard to how services and features could impact children’s usage of services, and the potential harms excessive use might cause. Collectively, these changes represent a significant strengthening of the Government’s position. They provide certainty of action, urgency and stronger safeguards for children. I urge noble Lords to recognise how far we have gone and to support the government amendments.

We particularly recognise the concerns that have been voiced during this debate and more widely regarding the Government’s intended timescales. I repeat that the power to extend is designed to cover exceptional circumstances only, rather than being a means of delay. Nevertheless, we have heard the arguments this afternoon and I am sure that my colleagues in the Commons will have more to say on timings when the Bill returns to the other place this evening. I am sure everybody will have noted the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, to continue with his constructive engagement with Ministers on that and other issues.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for recognising the progress that we have made on admissions and the published admissions numbers. I hope and believe that we can now be confident that these changes will help to ensure that school admission numbers give all parents a choice of high-quality local school places. That is the objective that we share.

On Amendment 106 in relation to mobile phones, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for recognising the progress that we have made on this, the clarity of the Government’s position that pupils should not have access to their mobile phones during the school day and the recognition of the assurances that my honourable friend Minister Bailey was able to give around the strengthening of the guidance and the enforcement support that we will now put in place.

I recognise the point made by the noble Baroness about the behaviour survey being a good way to measure the impact of the changes the Government have already made. For that reason, I am able to say to the noble Baroness that we can commit to looking at the behaviour survey, seeing the impacts and using that to make any necessary revisions to the guidance by September 2027.

With those assurances, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support the Government given the considerable movement that I think we have made in a range of areas.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 102, in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 102J to 102M.

102J: Clause 56, page 118, line 29, at end insert—
“(4A) In making a determination under subsection (3) or (4), the adjudicator must take into account the potential impact of the determination on—
(a) the quality of education provided at—
(i) the school in question, and
(ii) other schools within the relevant area, and
(b) the ability to give effect to parental preference for—
(i) the school in question, and
(ii) other schools within the relevant area.
(4B) Before determining an admission number under subsection (3) or (4) that is lower than the admission number specified in the admission arrangements to which the objection or reference relates, the adjudicator must consult and have regard to the views of the following persons about alternatives to lowering the admission number—
(a) the local authority for each school within the relevant area,
(b) the admission authority for the school in question, if different from the local authority for the school, and
(c) the Secretary of State.”

--- Later in debate ---

102M: Clause 56, page 118, line 41, at end insert—
““relevant area”, in relation to a school, has the same meaning as in section 88F (see subsection (4) of that section).”

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.

Motion B agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 106, in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 106G to 106J.

106G: 106G After Clause 29, insert the following new Clause—
“Guidance on use of mobile phones etc in schools in England
(1) In Part 10 of the Education Act 1996, after Chapter 2 insert—
“CHAPTER 2A
GUIDANCE ON MOBILE PHONES ETC: SCHOOLS IN ENGLAND
550C Guidance on use of mobile phones etc in schools in England
(1) The appropriate person for a school in England must have regard to guidance described in subsection (2) in exercising functions in relation to the conduct of the school.
(2) The guidance referred to in subsection (1) is guidance issued from time to time by the Secretary of State about registered pupils at schools having mobile phones and other personal interactive communication devices with them, and using them—
(a) during school hours, and
(b) on school premises.
(3) Subsections (4) to (6) apply for the purposes of this section.
(4) “Appropriate person” means—
(a) for the following kinds of school, the head teacher—
(i) a community, foundation or voluntary school;
(ii) a community or foundation special school;
(iii) a maintained nursery school;
(iv) a pupil referral unit;
(v) a school approved by the Secretary of State under section 342 (approval of non-maintained special schools);
(b) for any other kind of school, the proprietor.
(5) “School hours”, in relation to a school, means any time between the start of the first school session on a school day and the end of the last school session on the same day.
(6) References to mobile phones and other personal interactive communication devices do not include references to devices provided by or on behalf of the appropriate person for a school for use by registered pupils.”
(2) In section 89 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (determination by head teacher of behaviour policy), after subsection (6) insert—
“(7) If a notification or guidance given under section 88(2)(b) to the head teacher of a relevant school in England is inconsistent with guidance to which head teachers of relevant schools in England are required to have regard by section 550C of EA 1996 (guidance on use of mobile phones etc), the duty under subsection (2)(b) does not apply to the extent of the inconsistency.””

106J: Title, line 5, after “uniform;” insert “about guidance relating to use of mobile phones and other interactive communication devices in schools;”

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.

Motion C1 not moved.

Motion C agreed.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 38V to 38X to Commons Amendment 38J, to which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 38Z12 to 38Z21.

38Z12: As an Amendment to Commons Amendment 38J, in subsection (2), in inserted subsection (1)(a), leave out “features or functionalities” and insert “functionalities or other features”

--- Later in debate ---

38Z21: As an Amendment to Commons Amendment 38K, after subsection (2) insert—
“(3) If the first regulations have not been laid before Parliament before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (1A)—
(a) the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement explaining why, and
(b) before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which the statement under paragraph (a) is laid, the Secretary of State must lay the first regulations before Parliament.
(4) References in this section to the laying before Parliament of the first regulations are to the laying before Parliament of a draft of a statutory instrument containing the first regulations.”

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

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motion A1. On this group, we will debate amendments made in this House and in the other place relating to restrictions on social media use for children. Once again, before getting into the detail of these Motions and amendments, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Lloyd of Effra and myself I thank all noble Lords who have engaged so constructively, not just throughout the Bill’s passage but on these issues in particular. I am pleased to say that, thanks to the collaborative engagement of noble Lords across the House, I believe we have now reached a landing point that reflects our shared aims and that should command support on all sides.

I begin by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Nash. His commitment to the cause of children’s safety and well-being is profound. He has spoken passionately in the interests of children, parents and carers across this country, and I am grateful for his willingness to engage constructively with the Government on this critical issue. I also acknowledge the many noble Lords across the House who have shared their expertise and passion throughout this debate. The sincerity with which noble Lords have advanced their argument has been evident throughout and it has materially shaped the Government’s approach as we look beyond the consultation.

Good legislation is very often the product of exactly this kind of dialogue. The Government’s power now reflects the commitments we have made repeatedly in this House: it is a question of how we act, not if we act. Following the consultation, the Secretary of State now must, rather than may, use this power. To reiterate what my honourable friend Minister Bailey said in the other place yesterday,

“the status quo cannot continue. We are consulting on the mechanism, which is the right thing to do, but we are clear that under any outcome we will impose some form of age or functionality”

restrictions

“for children under 16. I can also confirm that consideration of restrictions such as curfews will be in addition to that, not instead of it. As the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has said, we are focused on addictive features, harmful algorithmically-driven content and features such as stranger pairing, which we know can be most damaging to children’s safety and privacy”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/4/26; col. 699.]

Recognising our shared determination for the quickest possible action, the Government have further tightened the timeframe for its delivery: a three-month progress report, followed by a 12-month timeline for making regulations, with the possibility of a single six-month extension, to be used only in exceptional circumstances. In recognition of the concerns about harmful and addictive design, we have further specified that the Secretary of State must have due regard to such features when making future regulations.

This is a serious and responsible approach. It preserves the integrity of the consultation, which has now received more than 55,000 responses from parents, children and those with direct experience of these harms. It also responds, rightly, to the concern that has animated much of the debate in this House: that children cannot wait, and that government must be held to a clear and demanding timetable.

I hope the House will recognise this for what it is: a collective effort from Parliament and government on one of the most important issues facing children today. The House has pressed, rightly, for urgency. The Government have maintained, rightly, that we must do this in a way that allows decisions to be informed by the consultation.

Motion A1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would amend the Government’s regulation-making power by requiring the Secretary of State to have further due regard to Ofcom’s codes of practice and the Information Commissioner’s children’s code, as well as specific risk factors such as “contact from strangers” and “loss of privacy”. It would also require due regard where representations from the general public are received in relation to a child facing

“imminent danger arising from their contact with an internet service”.

The Motion also proposes that the review of Ofcom’s enforcement powers is brought forward and tightens the timelines further, specifically that regulations must be made only six months after the three-month progress report, as well as shortening the potential extension period from six months to three months.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his continued commitment to child safety and rights. The Government share his determination to ensure the robust and urgent protection of children online. The noble Lord highlights many areas on which the Government have sought views through their consultation. While we recognise that these factors are important, prescribing an extensive list of specific “due regard” requirements, as the Motion does, is unnecessary and risks creating too much rigidity, reducing the flexibility the Secretary of State needs to respond to harms.

The consultation also makes it clear that the Online Safety Act will remain the foundation of our work on online safety; it forms a strong baseline from which this Government can build. I can reassure the noble Lord that the Online Safety Act’s statutory review will consider the effectiveness Ofcom’s enforcement powers, which are currently being manifested through 100 enforcement investigations that are currently under way. Introducing a review before all the duties have come into effect would risk being incomplete and ineffective.

On the timeline for action that we have discussed in this House over recent days, this Government have already gone a long way in ensuring that regulations are brought forward as quickly as possible, following the consultation. As I have said throughout, we will act as quickly as possible, and the DSIT Secretary of State has set out an ambition to make real progress on the regulations by the end of the year. Given all of this, I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, not to press his Motion.

This Government have made clear our intention to Act, and I know that many across both Houses will follow the outcomes of the consultation with great interest. It is in all of our interests to agree the Government’s Motion today, so we can start the important work of preparing to act on the consultation and keep children safe online.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I start where the Minister started, by acknowledging the work of my noble friend Lord Nash, who has led an incredibly effective campaign, which has been driven not by any political motives but by three things: first, wanting to do right by all children; secondly, having listened to the pain and the passion, as many of us have, of those parents who have lost their children, those who are worrying about their children and those whose children have been deeply harmed by social media; thirdly, by the weight of evidence from not just those parents but health professionals, police and law enforcement, and teachers.

Parents around the country are celebrating the Government’s decision to commit to act with the focus, as my noble friend said, on harmful and addictive features and algorithms and the ability to meet strangers online. It is my noble friend, his team and his co-signatories who are behind that change, and we are all really grateful to them for that.

But, as we have heard this afternoon, the work to get this right is only just beginning. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, wants to get things a bit more right this afternoon with his Motion A1, but these issues were debated yesterday, and now is not the time to revisit them. But the Government will benefit—whether they want to or not—from the expertise in this House, as we have heard; from my noble friend’s drive and focus; and from the experience and insight of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron; from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones; and, sadly for not much longer, from the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, who will be much missed on these issues.

I also acknowledge the courage of those Labour Peers who have supported my noble friend’s campaign, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, but also the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, who have all spoken out. We all know in this House how difficult that is to do. When we think about the impact that this change, if well implemented, will have on our children in future, we are all reminded of the extraordinary privilege that we hold to sit here and be part of shaping that change.

This has been a long Bill. I think there were around 700 amendments in Committee stage and many more thereafter. I could not have played my part in that without the wonderful campaigners, including, of course, the bereaved parents—especially Ellen Roome, who has been extraordinarily generous with her time—the experts and all the charities who have supported me on everything, including children deprived of their liberty, children who are not in school, free school policies, and, of course, social media and smartphones. I cannot thank them all enough. They brought to life the reality of the policy choices that the Government are making.

I would like to pause a moment and remind the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that, when he talks about the Conservatives bailing out at the last minute, it was the Liberal Democrats who bailed out all of 24 hours ago at the very last minute on a situation that would have clarified today the position of smartphones in schools and those schools that have “not seen, not heard” policies. Ironically, we are going to have to wait roughly 21 months as a result of their decision to move from supporting and signing an amendment to, as the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, said yesterday, preparing to vote against us on it. I ask the noble Lord perhaps to reflect on that.

But the Government have made a commitment that children should have no access to smartphones. When I met the Minister in the other place yesterday, she reassured me that the head teacher who spoke on the radio just after our debate last week and said that putting this guidance on a statutory footing would make no difference in her school, because they had had a ban since 2023 and children had phones switched off in their pockets and in their bags, would think again and would understand that was no longer appropriate. Given the evidence from many people at the Education Select Committee this morning, I press the Minister to confirm that she agrees with her colleague in the other place that that school will no longer think that policy is acceptable. The Government have committed to addressing this no later than September 2027, for which I am genuinely grateful, but my guess is we will need to address it sooner than that.

In closing, I am grateful for the steadfast support of the co-signatories to my very many amendments across the Bill, including my noble friends Lady O’Neill, Lady Spielman, Lord Agnew and, of course, Lord Nash. I would particularly like to call out the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who has been the most stalwart of stalwarts and has supported our proceedings with his own charm, expertise and insight from start to finish, which is quite a marathon. I have had fantastic and skilled and long-suffering support from the Public Bill Office and from an amazing team of special advisers and researchers in Annabelle Eyre, Henry Mitson, Dan Cohen and, for part of the Bill, Beatrice Hughes.

I would like to wish the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, a well-earned rest at the end of the Bill. I have some sense of how many hours and how many plates they have been spinning respectively. For my part, I am going to be stepping down from the Front Bench now that the Bill is completing its passage—anyone would think I was sad to go—but I genuinely look forward to working across the House on the special educational needs and disabilities legislation when it comes and more. Our role is making sure that legislation works in practice; I have tried to do this in this Bill, and I will try to do it in the future.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate today and during the whole of the Bill’s passage. First, on the specifics, as I set out earlier, the Government hope that today we are able to reach an agreement on the Government’s Motion; it represents an effective compromise that recognises the shared desire across the Government and both Houses that we must act quickly to protect our children’s online well-being.

On that point, and perhaps taking up the challenge of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, as my honourable friend said yesterday in the Commons, and in fact as we have said throughout discussions on these issues, we have been clear that the status quo cannot continue. The Government were clear when they launched their consultation that this was not about whether we take action, but rather what we do. We are consulting on the mechanism and that is the right thing to do. But we are clear—and this is the result of some of the very important engagement that has gone on—that, under any outcome, we will impose some form of age or functionality restrictions for children under 16. As I said earlier, I can confirm that consideration of restrictions such as curfews will be in addition to these restrictions not instead of them. This is a reasonable approach for this House, and in fact for both Houses, to take—to recognise the importance of the consultation and to recognise the strength of feeling as represented in these two Houses about the need to take action.

I also hear some of the other comments around the need for enforcement. I am sure that some of the debate will continue, and that is probably for other days and possibly even other bits of legislation.