Schools Bill [HL]

Lord Bishop of Durham Excerpts

Report stage & Lords Hansard - Part 2
Tuesday 12th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am very sympathetic to Amendments 62 and 107. I have spoken several times about mental health and I want to oppose Amendments 63, 114 and 115 on mental health provision. One concern I have is about the focus on creating a duty on the Secretary of State for Education to give financial assistance to set up consultations and reporting mechanisms on mental health and well-being. I do not think it is the job of the Education Minister to have this role, and this focus could well incentivise schools to focus too much on mental health. It is inappropriate for schools to prioritise mental health issues, and it muddles the responsibility of schools and the NHS and CAMHS. I would like to see more done for young people by the NHS, and I am trying to separate those things out.

My main point remains, as I have argued before, that if adults in schools continue to focus on mental health, there is a danger that young people will see the undoubted challenges of growing up—whether they are the agonies, anxieties and confusions of being a child going through puberty and what have you or the stresses and strains of facing exams and being educated—through the prism of mental health. We should be reassuring young people about the challenges and that they are perfectly all right. I worry that we are in danger of pathologising them.

I worry about a fait accompli situation. That point was emphasised by a recent report. Since we last discussed this issue, a shocking revelation has emerged, based on an Answer to a Question tabled in this House by the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, which revealed that children under 18 are being prescribed record levels of anti-depressant drugs, a 57% increase over the last four years, and noted that among five to 12 year-olds the prescription of anti-depressant drugs has gone up 40%. That situation could refute everything that I have said—it could mean that there was an exponential growth of mental health problems among the young—but psychiatric experts and psychologists have responded to it by saying the figures are staggering and dangerous. Professor Sami Timimi calls them a generation pathologised by adults steering the young towards medical diagnosis that is not appropriate, and says that itself then leads to treatment that is often pharmacological.

This medicalisation can of course have a catastrophic impact on the young. Another expert, Professor Spada, talks about the dangers of that, saying that adult neuroses about the young will lead them on to taking drugs that are highly addictive and will create a dependency. I think there is a real warning here that we should not just say “There is a growth in mental health problems” and let it run its course. I also think that the young themselves can then develop dependency not just on drugs but on the therapeutic labels that we have given them and been socialising them into during their school years.

The amendment uses an odd phrase, which has just been referred to, which is to explore how children’s mental health is “affected by … their schooling”, which I thought sounded rather accusatory or even a bit conspiratorial. That is especially ironic when we have ample evidence that it was the lack of schooling in the lockdown, combined with fear-based messaging over the last couple of years, that seems to have done a huge amount of psychological damage. I urge the Committee not to put this into law. If anything, I would like to have a more open discussion about the real problem of mental health and what it emanates from.

Finally, I am glad to see that Ofsted has been removed from the equation—it was in earlier amendments—but I still dread that the Secretary of State is being told to publish a report on the actions taken by schools to improve mental health. That will inevitably distract from the core purpose, which is indeed about the minds of young people but it should be about improving their minds educationally, not playing amateur psychology or psychiatry in the classroom.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, I support Amendments 114 and 115. I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has made some very helpful points about the danger of pathologising and the need for collaboration between education and health, although she put it rather more as an either/or while I would want to see it more as a both/and.

I particularly thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Chapman of Darlington and Lady Wilcox of Newport, for proposed new paragraph (c) in Amendment 115. The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and I could give the Committee a very good example of the work in local schools by the Darlington Area Churches Youth Ministry, which is outstanding when it comes to young people’s mental health and mental well-being. It is a voluntary charity that works in collaboration with schools. I am delighted that that was included.

While I acknowledge some of the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I think these amendments are well thought through and would be of value.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I encourage the Government to look in the directions that Amendment 63 is looking in. Generally, having a school counsellor is very positive: it adds a lot to the spirit, education and good running of a school because it deals with those people who, left to themselves, would generate a lot of unhappiness in the structure.

To my mind, a school counsellor is generally enough, someone that you know you can go and talk to, but that counsellor has to be supported in two ways. First, they have to be supported by the whole culture and structure of the school. Everyone has to know that they are able to speak to them. There has to be an open structure of communication through to the counsellor so that information flows in, and everyone is aware that that person is there to help.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, briefly, I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, taught in a primary school, but social engineering is not a phrase I would associate with them; I would associate imagination, sponges sucking up knowledge and getting excited about things, but not social engineering.

I want to raise another issue on mandatory work experience. The UK shared prosperity fund is a fund of £2.6 billion to develop people and skills. It also trains people to help with careers development. It is managed through the combined mayoral authorities and is for the next three years. I am a little disappointed that there is continuity in the fund for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland but in England it has ground to a shuddering halt. We have been told that the money cannot be spent until 2024-25. Can the Minister explain why? That will have repercussions for those who were employed to work on these areas.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, I spoke in favour of similar amendments in Committee and will do so again. I will ask the noble Baronesses, Lady Chapman and Lady Wilcox, the same question as last time, as I did not get an answer. Proposed new subsection (1) in Amendment 113 says “all schools”, so can I presume that means primary as well as secondary schools? I am not sure what work experience looks like over 10 days of primary school; my understanding of

“a minimum of 10 school days overall”

would be over the period of life in that primary or secondary school. There is a lack of clarity there.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and I are largely in agreement on some things this evening. I am absolutely with her on imagining, dreaming and so on, but I read the clause completely the opposite way around. I think it says, “Imagine what you can be, whatever your background”. The problem at the moment is that too many children do not think they can.

I had not heard the extremely good news that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, shared. It is very welcome, so I thank the Minister.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

In reply to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, obviously we are talking about secondary schools. That should be in the amendment, and I am very pleased to have the opportunity to clear that up. We were not intending to suggest that there should be a minimum of 10 days’ work experience for primary school pupils, although they might have an awful lot of fun going out into the workplace.

On the issues highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in Amendment 112, I enjoy the way she draws our attention to these things, but this time, I do not know whether she has the wrong end of the stick, I am being deliberately obtuse, or this is just a very boringly written amendment—if there is a zippier way of doing it, that would be fine—but this is all about awakening imagination.

My dad was a nurse, and I remember being at school, and saying this to my classmates when I was asked, and people laughing. I am sure that that does not happen anymore—this was the early 1980s—but too many people are still limiting their own possibilities because of a lack of awareness. There is plenty of evidence that career-based learning, as we are calling it here, or career-related learning, is not the same as careers advice, being asked to make decisions or eliminating options at a very early age. This is about awakening young children to all the amazing possibilities that exist, and whether that be in the arts or science or whatever, it is about broadening opportunities, not narrowing them.

On Amendment 113 we were challenged about work experience and the minimum of 10 days. To be clear, that does not have to be 10 days in one block. There are lots of innovative schemes now where people are going out for half a day a week, or where they start work experience younger in their school life and build up relationships with employers as appropriate. There are lots of ways of doing this now. What we find is that young people who are maybe more advantaged—whose parents have connections and whose schools have really good partnerships—get great experience. It benefits them when they are making important decisions about what to study and the choices that they make in the future. It also benefits them through exposure to ways of behaving in different workplaces. We find that less-advantaged young people do not, as often, get the benefit of that experience. Unless we make it a requirement or an entitlement, my fear is that this inequality will persist. This is something that can help; it is a contribution towards social justice and reducing inequality. We are totally committed to the provision of careers-related learning, however that might be done. It must not be dull—and I take the warnings of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, to heart here.

I highlight the second part of Amendment 113, which talks about looked-after children—I thought I might get asked about that actually, and I want to explain why it is there. I have felt for some time that local authorities are missing a trick in their corporate parenting role. Every young person I know who has parents who have got their own business is able to take advantage of work experience in that business, and other young people might make use of their parents’ contacts to secure opportunities. Looked-after children, whose corporate parent is the local authority, are too often unable to take advantage of opportunities to experience work in a council or other local public body. I think we can build on the good work that some local authorities are doing to fulfil that parenting responsibility, which most other parents try their best to do. There is a lot more that could be done. Some good work is happening, and it would be good if the Minister could commit to looking into that, and figure out whether that is something that the Government might want to encourage, so that we can see more of our looked-after children benefit from it.