Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hacking Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 1st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

The pleasure, my Lords, in speaking quite late in a debate such as this one—I think I am listed as the 59th speaker—is the opportunity of hearing excellent earlier speeches. In that regard, I refer to the speeches of the four former Secretaries of State: the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard of Northwold, the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Baker of Dorking, and my noble friend Lady Morris of Yardley. I am so glad that three of them are here to hear this praise.

I wish to address the subject of home schooling. This is covered in Clauses 30 and 31 of the Bill, covering pages 50 to 64. Clause 30 is directed to “Local authority consent for withdrawal of certain children from school” and Clause 31 is directed to registration of children not in state school education. These provisions cover altogether 14 pages of the Bill and are, I suggest, too long and too complicated. Regrettably, we no longer legislate on principle but in tight definitions. As a result, we have before us a very detailed Bill of some 137 pages—not as long as other Bills that your Lordships are currently considering, but still, I suggest, too long.

I first got to know about home schooling during the ill-fated passage of the last Government’s Schools Bill in 2022. Home schooling covers only about 1% of all schooling in the United Kingdom, but it remains very important. A common characteristic of home-school parents is that most, although not all, have had a university education. Why do they want to home-school their children? It can be said very simply: to obtain a better education. I will give two examples of that. First, their children get one-to-one education at home, as opposed to in a school class of 30 or more pupils. Secondly, they have a choice of subjects not available in their local state schools. I refer, for example, to classics. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, spoke earlier about the value to him of having had a classical education.

I should disclose at this stage that I have one grandchild who has recently been moved to home education by my son and daughter-in-law because he had become completely unsettled in state education. My worry is the test in the Bill that has to be applied by local authorities in their decision to agree to a child moving from a school to home education.

In new Section 434A(4) of the Education Act 1996 on page 51 of the Bill—one of the complications of this Bill is that it refers back to that Act—it appears that the test is whether the child is suffering from “significant harm” in state education. This is completely the wrong way round. The test should be whether the child is going to benefit from home schooling. The position is not clear, because in new Section 434A(6), also on page 51, the suggested test is what is in the “best interests” of the child.

This is all the victim of excessively complicated legislation that will make it so hard for home-educating parents, and indeed for anybody who has to construe the provisions of this Bill. May Bills become more simple.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hacking Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

The Government’s proposals for data collection are detailed and onerous. They are the sort of things that I would like to have time to go through with officials. A lot of my amendments try to get into the details of what is going on there. My two amendments in this group fall very much into the category of questions I would like answers to that I am quite prepared to have by way of a brief answer now and a long discussion afterwards.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, this is my first occasion to speak in this debate on the eighth day of Committee. As I said at Second Reading, I have concentrated and will continue to concentrate on the issues relating to home-schooling parents and their pupils. It was therefore heartening to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, his strong endorsement of home education. It was also helpful of my noble friend the Minister to intervene when she did. It gives me the opportunity at the beginning of my short speech to say that there should always be a register.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, may remember that when she was in the Department for Education—I do not know if she is listening to me at the moment—I brought home-schooling mothers to her. The issue that I have on behalf of the home-schooling mothers is not whether there should be a register or not. I wholly endorse the ample reasons my noble friend the Minister gave in her speech just now. Yes, there should be a register, but the problem is that—these are the words I used at Second Reading—the provisions relating to home-schooling in the Bill are

“too long and too complicated”.—[Official Report, 1/5/25; cols. 1414.]

We have certain difficulties in the conduct of this debate. First, there are several amendments that are not on the issue of home-schooling. The second difficulty, which the noble Lord, Lord Frost, identified, is that we are not taking things in the order of the Bill. We have already jumped to Clause 31. The first clause in the Bill on home-schooling is Clause 30. As an omnibus, there are altogether four clauses relating to home-schooling in the Bill: Clauses 30, 31, 32 and 33. It would be much more convenient if we had taken them in order.

The best thing that I can do at this stage, it being the first occasion I have spoken on the Bill in Committee, is to address your Lordships on home-schooling, and their parents. Altogether, home-schooling accounts for only 1% of all children eligible for state education. In England in the academic year 2024-25, there were altogether 9,092,073 children in state schools. That makes the total of home-schooling parents to be in the region of 90,000 to 91,000. This is a substantial and surprising number of pupils, but that is how the arithmetic works out.

Many of the home-schooling mothers, but by no means all, are university educated. They group together in what they call co-operatives. The number of children being educated is often around seven to eight pupils per group and sometimes, on special subjects, home-schooling mothers can gather together 20 to 30 pupils at the same time. During each term, home-schooling parents have on average three educational visits to London museums and other places of education.

Another feature of home-schooling is that it allows the teaching of subjects that are not available in the state system—for example, classics, and also schooling in music and drama is not always available in state schools. There was a good example given to the Minister, Stephen Morgan, when I met him with some home-schooling mothers. One cited the case of wanting to include classics in the education of one or more of her children, so she found an Oxford graduate who could take on that task.

The reasons for home-schooling are a better education, an education in subjects that are not available in state schools and, sometimes, the need to take a child out of a state school for one unhappiness or another. Your Lordships can all understand that home-schooling is a big commitment—the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, recognised that—and that home-schooling mothers are very busy in their prime role of the education of their children. Therefore, to involve them in extensive bureaucracy as proposed in the Bill is wrong and that is what I oppose.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hacking Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wei (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 203A and Amendment 215A, and to give moral support to Amendment 221. Before turning to these provisions, I wish to reflect briefly on the underlying scope and purpose of Clause 30.

Clause 30 as drafted is striking in its breadth. It hands local authorities the power to demand consent before a child may be withdrawn from a maintained school. I pick up here on a point made previously by the Minister about whether all parents could be subject to this. My assertion is that they could if a local authority decided, on the withdrawal of the child from school, to put the parent under a Section 47 order. Apparently, this is incredibly easy to do. The law requires only reasonable cause to suspect significant harm. It is a deliberately low bar, meant to protect children, and I have had correspondence—we can discuss this again in August—that indicates that it has at times been misused, just through a referral, for example, from the school itself. Let us say that a teacher does not really understand home education, is concerned that withdrawal might cause harm and alerts the local authority. Instantly, it can start an investigation. As an officer, you run that by your manager, who is busy—partly, perhaps, because there are many more families to investigate now that that the database exists. Perhaps there was a missed medical appointment, which I am sure we have all experienced, and they were late and could not see the doctor in time, perhaps because there was traffic. Suddenly, that might give rise to an S47. Although in theory, under the clause, only a certain subset of parents may be affected, potentially, in practice, depending on the ideological bias of the officers involved—and we have seen in some authorities that there clearly are some outliers—all parents may be swept into such measures.

Clause 30 as drafted hands local authorities the power to demand consent before a child may be withdrawn, yet nowhere does it properly limit the grounds on which that consent may be withheld. This gives the state a sweeping veto over parents’ decisions to withdraw their children, even when such withdrawal arises from urgent, pressing circumstances such as sustained bullying or grooming—I believe that you can be subject to an S47 if you are being groomed in a school—unmet special educational needs or serious mental health concerns. In doing so, it risks turning what should be a family’s protective step—for example, taking your child out of that circumstance of grooming by bullies in school—into a procedural trap.

This is a significant expansion of state power into private family life. It runs counter the well-established principle, under both domestic common law and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, that parents are presumed to act in their children’s best interests unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. By casting such a wide net without rigorous statutory safeguards, Clause 30 risks inviting inconsistency, arbitrary refusals and unnecessary confrontations that erode trust between families and local authorities. It is precisely this sort of overreach that sows the seed of future litigation and damages the co-operative spirit that effective safeguarding truly depends on.

Against that backdrop, Amendment 215 offers a much more balanced and constructive approach and, dare I say it, safeguard. It would require local authorities to offer parents a voluntary information session before they formally deregister a child to home educate. This session would do three modest but crucial things: provide an exploration of the parents’ legal rights and responsibilities, give details of what support services might be available, and lay out clearly what the process and consequences of withdrawal would entail.

This is not a barrier, a checkpoint or a covert mechanism for delay; it is simply an offer of information. It is a means to ensure that parents contemplating such a significant step—as we have heard, many more do so these days—do so with a full understanding of the legal and practical landscape, and it respects their right to choose while empowering them to make that choice wisely.

The decision to home-educate is rarely casual; many parents arrive at it after considerable distress. We have heard accounts from across England of children so overwhelmed by school that they stop speaking, suffer debilitating anxiety or face persistent exclusion. In such cases, parents often withdraw a child in a crisis, being understandably focused on immediate well-being rather than long-term procedural consequences. Those parents deserve our empathy, not our suspicion.

This amendment is rooted in sound constitutional principle. In R (Anufrijeva) v Secretary of State for the Home Department the law is clear. Procedural fairness is a cornerstone of our system requiring timely, clear information when rights are at stake. This is precisely what Amendment 215A would achieve, ensuring that parents understand their freedoms and obligations.

It is not an abstract problem. In evidence we have repeatedly heard of parents who did not fully appreciate the impact of deregistration. Some assumed that they could simply return their child to school at any time. Others did not realise the additional hurdles for exam access or the financial implications once local authority funding fell away. One parent who wrote in from the West Midlands said starkly, “We thought we’d just get on with it, but suddenly we were isolated. No support, no guidance and a local authority more interested in interrogating us than helping”. Another told us, “No one warned us about exam costs. If we’d known, we would have budgeted and planned differently”.

This amendment also helps to address the troubling postcode lottery that currently characterises local authority engagement. Some councils build relationships with home-educating families, others issue notices to satisfy and school attendance orders at extraordinary rates. In Portsmouth, for instance, in one recent year nearly three-quarters of all known home-educating families were issued a notice. That is not a safeguarding approach grounded in individual assessment; it is a blunt instrument that breeds fear and resentment.

Offering a voluntary information session helps to shift this climate. It replaces adversarial compliance checks with constructive engagement. It gives parents confidence that they understand their rights, that they are under no obligation to accept invasive home visits, and that they can approach home education in a spirit of informed partnership rather than fearful retreat. It is essential that this remains voluntary. To compel attendance would simply re-create the coercive environment that we seek to avoid. Some parents may never need further help; others may seek guidance. This gentle first step ensures that they start that journey from a place of respect and understanding.

Finally, I want us to remember the positive role that schools themselves can play. Head teachers are often the first to hear of a family’s intention to deregister. With this amendment in place, they would have somewhere helpful to direct parents to—not as a hurdle but as a supportive opportunity to become better informed.

In sum, this is precisely the kind of proportionate, relationship-based approach we should be championing, respecting parental authority, ensuring clarity of obligation, building trust and ultimately safeguarding children far more effectively than heavy-handed procedural entanglements could ever do. If in August we can perhaps implement more changes such as this, we may need fewer tribunals, although I agree they are a very important measure, and we may need fewer databases because parents and local authorities are working together in co-operation. I beg to move.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, as I said at Second Reading and repeated earlier this afternoon, it is my contention on behalf of home-schooling parents that the provisions in this Bill are

“too long and too complicated”.—[Official Report, 1/5/25; col. 1414.]

To that end, I have given notice that I will oppose the Question that Clause 30 stand part of the Bill. I also put down Amendment 233A relating to Clause 31.

Perhaps we could look at the whole. I have argued against the long and complicated provisions in this Bill relating to home-schooling parents because they are frightfully oppressive on home-schooling parents and are in many ways unworkable because of the complicated language used in this Bill.

To look at it as a whole, the home-schooling provisions in the Bill are covered in Clauses 30 to 33. They cover 29 pages, from page 50 to page 79 of the Bill, and the clauses therein contain 17 very large new sections to be inserted after Sections 434 and 436 of the Education Act 1996. So the further complication is that not only do you need to have in your hands this Bill, or Act when it is passed, but you have to go back to the 1996 Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to ask a question on this set of amendments on registers. I have not spoken before, but I am absolutely supportive of the Bill; it is long overdue and I very much welcome it. But in the spirit of wanting to do this as practicably as possible, we need to make sure that we are not being too onerous on parents and local authorities in this area, and that what we do makes sense. In respect of what has just been said, if I am right, parents just have to provide information under new Section 436C(1), not new Section 436C(2), which is a much longer list. In fairness, it says:

“To the extent that the local authority has the information or can reasonably obtain it”,


so I am not overly worried about that.

I do not think that the questions being asked are unreasonable, as long as the list does not grow and we are firm with local authorities about not sneaking in extra questions that are not required, but—I am not sure where this is in the Bill—how often does this have to be updated by parents? When educating your child, if for some reason you wish to do an area of learning next month and you approach somebody new to do that—maybe for one hour a week—would you have to notify in advance, would you do an annual review or whatever? We need to be really clear around that area, as a sign of good faith that we are not deliberately trying to make this onerous. There should not be some kind of checking that means you can never make a mistake. I am just using this as an example for the Minister because, if we are not careful, the rules could be misinterpreted and this could get more cumbersome than we intended. Other than that, I do not think that new Section 436C(1) is unreasonable or time consuming, as long as it is interpreted in the way that was intended.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend was a most distinguished Secretary of State for Education, and I am very grateful to her for intervening in this debate. To answer her questions directly, she said that she was focusing only on new Section 436C(1), which is indeed the subsection that I particularly drew to your Lordships’ attention in covering paragraph (e). I have to disagree with my noble friend saying that it is okay; I do not think it is okay at all.

My noble friend asked what the onward obligation is to provide further information when, let us say, an extra teacher or the like is brought in. The answer according to the Bill is that there is a duty to inform the register every time, within 15 days, so that is the onward responsibility.

My noble friend is quite right that new Section 436C(2) refers to the local authority, not the parents. I pointed it out because there is an enormous number of requirements on the local authority in the registration process; they actually number 27. That is an illustration of how complicated the Bill has become and how unworkable it is in its present state.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has said, as the Minister will know from my numerous amendments later in the Bill, which I look forward to discussing with officials.

I have three amendments in this group. Amendment 204 inquires after the process in subsection (3) describing condition A. I hope that the Minister can describe today what the Government’s reasoning is in making this change. When it comes to what the process is going to be and whether there is the capability in system to do it, I am happy to leave that to discussions with officials.

Amendment 210 questions the meaning of “without undue delay”. If the hereditary Peers Bill was amended to say that we were leaving without undue delay, I would regard that as a plus. Such phrases in the mouths of government tend to mean quite a long time. I would have thought that in these circumstances, where the education of a child is concerned, something tighter might be advisable.

Amendment 221 says that, if this is what it looks like, the parent really needs access to a tribunal. If a local authority is on song and doing things quickly and it all goes smoothly and fairly, fine, but there are a lot of local authorities—my noble friend Lord Wei named the most notoriously worst of them—where this is not the case, often just temporarily because of staff changes or short-staffing. In those circumstances, the parent needs some recourse, because it is the child that matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

In closing, I say that these amendments would provide balance, relief and recognition to families who are already educating well but are temporarily unable to comply due to legitimate life circumstances. Clause 31, as it stands, paints too broad a brush. The state has a role in protecting children, but that role must be exercised proportionately, humanely and with respect for the lawful choices of families. I beg to move.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Wei, on all these amendments, but particularly on his Amendment 423. At an earlier stage in these proceedings, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, who is no longer in his place on the Benches, was very critical of home-schooling, alleging that there were poor results in home-schooling. Anything that home-schoolers can do in order to show the success of their home-schooling is to be encouraged. For that reason, I particularly support Amendment 423.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, all the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Wei seek to find exemptions to the basic principle that there should be a register of children not in school; therefore, I cannot support these. First, the point of the register is to ensure that the local authority knows which children are not in school, and these amendments would undermine that. Secondly, and importantly, it allows home-educating parents to access support where they need it. I hope we might spend a bit more time on that in future groups. Finally, these amendments make an assumption that, in these conditions, it may be preferable to educate the child at home, and this could well be right, but, in my opinion, it remains reasonable and proportionate to record which children are not in school.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I think I have to correct myself, because I have said, on behalf of home-schooling mothers, that we favour the registry. I said that two years ago and during the Schools Bill of 2022. I did not comprehend that these amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, are anti-register. I therefore cannot remain loyal to what I have just said in support of them, because I think the register is important, but Amendment 423 still stands good and I continue to support it.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, I find myself roughly in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on this one: a register should be there.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hacking Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hacking]

235A: Clause 31, page 54, leave out lines 40 to 44 and insert—
“(b) the names and home addresses of the parent or parents who are taking responsibility for the education of the child;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to identify the minimum requirement for providing information for the register and ensures that information is only included on parents who have responsibility for educating the child.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, the grouping of these amendments is becoming a bit confusing. This amendment and Amendment 237 are directed to the protection of sexually abused children, but so are Amendment 236A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 254A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I will therefore be addressing the problem of protecting sexually abused children at this stage in this group. I did not intervene earlier because I thought it sensible to collect all my words dealing with the same issue together. Before I go any further, I should like to refer to when my noble friend the Minister got to the Dispatch Box at the beginning of this stage of the Committee and kindly mentioned my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Lucas, and other noble Lords who have participated in this Bill. She also referred to the meetings that have taken place at the Department for Education with her officials and with her colleague the Minister, Stephen Morgan. I wish to express extreme thanks to my noble friend and the officials for their helpfulness. On this Bill, the Government are listening. This has not been exactly a feature of recent Bills, either from the Conservative Benches or my Benches. On this Bill, however, the Government are listening and we are grateful.

My attention was drawn to this problem by a mother who had a serious problem with her husband abusing her son. That kind lady has been very objective and forceful in presenting her case. She spoke to the noble Lord, Lord Frost—I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber. She also came to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. I do not know whether she came to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but he has certainly been in contact with her. It has been helpful to have the evidence that she provided. I am not going to identify her, although I should also mention that the Minister himself, Stephen Morgan, met her. My noble friend’s officials also met her and exchanged emails with her. A lot of information has been exchanged, which has been helpful.

In brief, her son was sexually abused by her husband, I think from the age of four. It went on for several years. When the mother found out, she was absolutely horrified and wanted, as do all mothers who face the same situation, the maximum protection. That is what these amendments are trying to do. My submissions on this issue are not based on just one case. I am afraid that a number of cases of sexual abuse of children are undetected, unreported or both. This brings me back to many years ago, when I was a barrister appearing at the Lincoln Assizes. I was involved in a case of incest. The prosecution case against the accused was that he was committing incest on the complainant, who was both his daughter and granddaughter. That illustrates how horrific the problem of sexual abuse can be.

Under these amendments, the protection sought is that the misbehaving husband should not have access to any information, particularly, as my noble friend identified, as to the whereabouts and address of the abused child. He should be entirely separated from that poor child. One can do that in a number of ways —that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in Amendment 236A, or by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, in Amendment 237. Amendment 235A was his amendment, not mine, but somehow his name was lost from the Marshalled List. I apologise but I hope he has forgiven me. He is a very forgiving Peer. The position, which is the point I really wanted to establish, is that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, is still with the amendment and supportive of it. I did not quite get a nod from him but I will work on that basis because it is a very sensible amendment.

The Minister was quite right—she referred to data protection too—when she said that there is a strict rule in new Section 436C(5) that puts a strong prohibition on the publication of any information in the register and on it being made “accessible to the public”. I keep calling the Minister my learned friend—she is very learned, but I should stick to the correct parliamentary description of her as my noble friend. Anyway, new Section 436C(5) provides a strong prohibition, but of course that means that the officials with access to the register have to be trusted to follow new Section 436C(5).

The lady to whom I just referred, who has been so helpful in our deliberations on this issue, recalls a situation when a husband, who had been convicted of the sexual abuse of his child—actually, in that case it was two girls—had been sent to prison but had rung up to collect information from the register, which was given. The only way that we in this House can properly protect the abused child from being traced by the abusing father is by making sure that the information is not in the register. Of course, if it is not in the register, it cannot be released. I suggest that that is the best approach.

I end by thanking my noble friend again for how she has conducted this entire Bill, with helpfulness, a willingness to listen and, above all, a willingness to work with this House. That is a matter deserving of great congratulations and great thanks. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)]

My Lords, I must apologise: I should have advised the Committee that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, alluded to, Amendment 237 is in an incorrect place on the Marshalled List—hence my calling Amendment 235A now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, having been in this House for 30-plus years, no—you listen to the Minister, understand what they are saying, and perhaps that requires some further questioning. On the business of interrupting the Minister in the middle of her speech when you have not heard the full speech, I agree that it is relatively modern but it is clear that Committee is a conversation, and the place where that is restricted is on Report. I do not intend to be long but want to ask a short question. This is what Committee is. It is not, “Before the Minister sits down” but the basic process of Committee. I will take the advice of the clerks over lunch.

I make the point here: the noble Baroness is saying that she will put things in guidance. This is a good illustration of wanting to understand the limitations of the guidance. Can guidance definitively define a term in the Bill, such as “receiving education”, which is not defined in the Bill, in a way that is legally protected? Can guidance go against those terms? The Bill clearly says that everything must be recorded. The noble Baroness is saying, “No, only some stuff needs to be recorded”. Is there power in guidance to do that? Otherwise, the structure of the Bill needs adjustment. Also, I encourage her, if she does not want to go the whole way that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, does, at least to make it clear, probably in guidance, that doing this in an annual report is an option. Otherwise, the Bill is saying that it should be done within 15 days.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a good debate, as my noble friend recorded in her remarks, and it has now gone on for over one and a half hours. I have always been a supporter of registration, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, was wise to remind us of the large absenteeism of children who are not receiving any education at all.

I make a request of the Minister on only two points. First, after the productive discussions we have had with her officials, and indeed with her colleague Stephen Morgan—I hope we have persuaded her and her officials of the important amendments that the Government could make following those discussions. I put in the request therefore to see the drafts of those amendments before we go to Report. It would be helpful and enable us to know what to do on Report.

My second comment arises out of Amendment 251 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young, and Amendment 254 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. We heard the replies of the Minister on those amendments. The reason for me drawing attention to them is that they were both valuable and should be given close consideration. The Minister replied that we can clear it all up in provided statutory guidance. I have always been rather nervous about leaving things to the guidance notes after the Bill because the terms of the Bill are those that the nation has to follow. One is worried about what statutory guidance will say and how it will change the application of the Bill. But that said, I withdraw my amendment and thank all noble Lords for the now over one and a half hours of debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 235A (in substitution for Amendment 237) withdrawn.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hacking Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lucas has raised concerns about parental and child involvement at both a national and local level. It is of course important that local authorities consult with home-educating parents. But His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition are of the view that the establishment of a “parental advisory board”, as suggested in Amendment 270, or a “children’s advisory board”, as suggested in Amendment 388, is potentially unnecessary in the Bill.

On Amendment 380, we want local authorities to be targeted in their investigations and to focus on those children who are not receiving an appropriate best-in-class education. They may be at risk, and we therefore find it challenging to support this amendment. On the other hand, an appeals process, as suggested in Amendment 382, might work well. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to that amendment.

It is frequently said that constructive challenge and laser-focused scrutiny are the hallmarks of your Lordships’ House. But, when presented with eminently sensible amendments whose benefits have already been so eloquently put by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, there is no requirement to go over them again.

The other amendments in this group, which seek clarity on the frequency of responding to local authority requests for information, are understandable. Home-educating parents may have concerns on this and are also likely to be spinning many plates already. The amendments are self-explanatory and we look forward to the response from the Minister.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I am somewhat disappointed that there has not been support so far for the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which I co-signed. This is a very important amendment and I will explain why.

The amendment is basically to remove from the Bill the provisions in proposed new Section 436D. The purpose therefore is to ask the Government and my noble friend the Minister to think again about it. The provisions place a requirement to provide information within 15 days on all parents, who must provide initial basic information under proposed new Section 436C, such as the name and home address of each parent and, under paragraph (e), a lot of very detailed information about the home educators who will be educating their children.

If a parent is in breach of providing either the initial information or any changes to it, they are then guilty of breaching proposed new Section 436D. The further consequence, if they are in breach, is that they will suffer monetary penalty. This is unfair and far too harsh on ordinary parents who are trying to do an ordinary job of home schooling, and I ask my noble friend the Minister to think again about those provisions. They put the home-schooling parent into an almost criminal capacity, and that is just wrong. So I would be very grateful if my noble friend would think again about all those penalties.

Let us remember that under new Section 436C(1)(e) there is a lot of detailed information provided, for Sunday schools that a child may be going to or evening classes for physical exercise, and so forth. Things can easily change: perhaps there is a new gym mistress for the evening physical education class, or there are new preachers at the Sunday school. These are very detailed matters, but it does not matter about the detail. The obligation is for the parent to provide the details of the change and provide that detail of change within 15 days. This is far too onerous.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

May I say something? I was late to the debate, so I have no right to speak.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

The Government say no. I just wanted to apologise.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

Let the noble Baroness speak.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

She was not here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I will deal first with Amendment 306 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which we also support. I am interested in hearing from the Minister about why we would not want to do this.

On Amendment 316, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, it is easy to say, “You chose to let your children not be part of the school system, so you can just get on with it. You chose to home-educate them, so we are not going to pay for exams or whatever”. That would be the wrong way to approach this. If we really want to make home education closer to local authorities, so that they support each other, there are a number of supportive things we can do.

Not every home educator has the financial resources to pay for examinations. We saw a huge rise in home-educated children during Covid, many of whom come from deprived areas. Families really struggle to find the costs for examinations, so supporting this amendment would be a hand of educational friendship. We know that home educators take huge pressure off the education budget as a whole and off school rolls, so I just think it is the right thing to do.

I am quite fascinated by Amendment 478 and looking forward to hearing the Minister’s reply. I thought that all high achievers—super-high achievers, if you like—whether they are educated at home or at a maintained school, academy or free school, would get that recognition. I do not quite understand this amendment, so perhaps the Minister will enlighten us.

[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 ---

Moved by

[Lord Hacking]

333A: Clause 32, page 64, line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 66.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak with a certain amount of repentance, because this amendment is too much of an overreach and I regret drafting it in that form. At earlier stages in the Bill, relating to Clause 31—this goes to my Amendment 233A—I found it necessary to seek to have taken out of the Bill provisions going over one, two or three pages. I proposed that for Clause 31 because there was far too much information being sought of parents and far too much of an obligation on local councils, which were being compelled to meet some 13 requirements as part of the process.

This is an overreach on my part, and I apologise. It is very important that the local council has full powers to issue school attendance orders. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and I have mentioned, there is a great worry about the number of children—some 10,000 was the figure given—who are not having any education at all. Therefore, local authorities should be diligent about finding where these children are and issue the necessary number of school attendance orders.

I support Clause 32 until the top of page 66, where there is a requirement for the recipient of the school attendance order to provide the information within 15 days. That is a very tight timetable for ordinary citizens, who would not be at all familiar with receiving an attendance order, which, presumably, is rather a scary experience. I suggest it should be a longer period, but that is the only revision I am now seeking under this amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, I was going to speak to Amendment 365, which is about appeals against a local authority’s decision not to revoke an attendance order. However, in light of the discussion we had about appeals in an earlier session in July, I had intended to withdraw this amendment, so I will not speak to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment 333A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, this is another group that would be best served by my listening to what the Minister has to say: there are a lot of detailed bits and pieces in here. I would like to give the Minister comfort that, where I have put down an amendment such as Amendment 348 and the Member’s explanatory statement says

“to facilitate debate of school attendance orders”,

that is what I mean—I do not mean to wipe them out of the Bill. Sometimes her replies sound as if the civil servants regard me as Attila the Hun bearing down on them. No, it is just because of earlier comments made from the Bench opposite that they would like to have an amendment to debate and to stick to that amendment, so I have tabled amendments to enable us to debate, with no other malevolent intention towards the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, since I joined the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in Amendment 348, I feel I should stand in repentance again, because this is a bad case of overreach and I regret it.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, this is the briefest of brief debates, so I think the Committee hangs on the Minister’s every word at this point. The group contains a large number of probing amendments, and my concern about the majority of them is that, again, they would introduce too great an element of variability in the application of school attendance orders, with the concomitant risk of perceived inconsistency and unfairness that I mentioned on the earlier group. I will not repeat those arguments. Suffice it to say that the data published by the department shows considerable disparity in the use of notices and school attendance orders, even between neighbouring local authorities such as Portsmouth and Southampton or East and West Sussex. There is a genuine issue that needs to be resolved in terms of bringing clarity to the criteria and the use of school attendance orders.

I also understand why several noble Lords have sought to lessen the penalties on those parents who fail to comply with the terms of school attendance orders, but I do not agree that it is appropriate, given the negative impact on children of missing out on a suitable education. Rather, I think we should support the Government to offer the most streamlined response so that decisions are taken transparently, consistently and speedily. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I think I should fit in Amendment 368—I apologise; I thought the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was going to speak again—which is in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for whose support I am again grateful. It recognises that higher fines, and especially imprisonment of the often lone parent, in fact betray the interests of the child. The Government do not collect information on the protected characteristics of those who are subject to these penalties, so they cannot assess their impact.

All the cases I saw when I was a magistrate were of people in poverty, and we know that Gypsies and Travellers have the lowest rate of economic activity of any ethnic group—47%, as opposed to 63% for England and Wales overall. A Prison Advice and Care Trust survey of 2023, apart from confirming the poverty I have alluded to, points to a range of research showing increased risky behaviour among prisoners’ children, poorer mental health outcomes and the potential lifelong negative impact of parental imprisonment. When a mother goes to prison, 95% of children have to leave home. This amendment would serve the interests of the child, which should of course be paramount, and I urge my noble friend the Minister to accept it.

[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.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hacking Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 19th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, I supported and spoke to a similar amendment in Committee. Again, I will not be very long.

I want to celebrate this great example of when campaigning works. I pay tribute to Justlife, which worked alongside the Shared Health Foundation for the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Households in Temporary Accommodation. I want to stress the importance of this, and will not apologise for repeating what are such horrific figures. From 2023 to 2025, 80 children died while in temporary accommodation; that was 3% of total child deaths. From 2019 to 2024, temporary accommodation was cited as a factor in the deaths of 74 children.

Having said that, I want to stress, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Young, was hinting at, that it is crucial that this comes into effect as soon as possible. We could potentially save a life if GP surgeries and schools know the situation that children are in. Much more broadly, we need to get to a situation where we do not have children in temporary accommodation for the long periods of time they are now. Please let this be done as soon as possible.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

I give heartfelt thanks to the Minister from these Benches for moving this amendment. I have not dared count the number of amendments my noble friend has tabled, but this is a magnificent example of a Minister and a Government listening.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, we on these Benches warmly welcome the amendment and thank the Government for tabling it.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hacking Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 28th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to add my name and voice to the force of nature that is my noble friend Lord Bird. We have heard points made forcefully by all noble Lords around the House. I think noble Lords all know what I do for a living; I am sorry to be boring about this.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

A schoolmaster!

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

I am indeed a schoolteacher. Every day in Hackney I see the effects of poverty. We still have 55% free school meals in our school. Schoolteachers are very used to targets. Every pupil has target grades and if they do not hit their target grades, we have to explain why. It really does focus the mind. If we can solve child poverty, the entire Bill will be so much more powerful. The best way to solve poverty is with targets, so I beg the Government to accept the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hacking]

134A: Clause 32, page 58, leave out lines 17 to 19 and insert—
“(b) the names and home addresses of the parent or parents who are taking responsibility for the education of the child;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to identify the minimum requirement for providing information for the register and ensures that information is only included on parents who have responsibility for educating the child.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be speaking in this group on Amendments 134A, 139 and 140. At this stage, I should draw your Lordships’ attention to Amendment 135A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. The very first part of this amendment is almost identical to my Amendment 134A.

However, in the second part—which is a rather longer part—of Amendment 135A, which deals with the problem of excessive information being sought from home-schooling parents, the noble Baroness and noble Lord deal with it much more extensively than I do in my Amendments 139 and 140, but it is on the same subject.

Before I speak to my Amendment 134A, I should like to acknowledge the good progress that has been made on home-schooling issues in the three or four years that I have been involved in them in your Lordships’ House. First, there has been very good progress on the register, which is now to be called the not in school register. That is most welcome. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, may remember that, with the previous Government’s Bill, I made it quite plain that I have always supported the institution of that register.

Secondly, I acknowledge the recognition that home schooling should not be secret, and that the local authority should know what home schooling is taking place. Thirdly, there is the recognition, which has come out now, of the role of the local authority to assist home-schooling parents. That was very well covered in the second bullet point on page 8 of my noble friend’s letter of 7 January and was even better covered by the Minister’s excellent and helpful speech at the beginning of group 3 during our present deliberations on Report.

This enables me to go, on a strong basis, to my Amendment 134A—previously Amendment 135. Its purpose is to protect a home-schooling parent and child from an offending other parent—for example, a father who has perpetrated serious sexual acts on the child, the parents having separated and now living in different abodes. Another example is protection from an offending father who has perpetrated serious domestic violence in the home. My amendment seeks to prevent the offending parent having knowledge of the address and whereabouts of the mother and child. As your Lordships will understand, all parents who have faced the ordeals that I have just described place tremendous importance on their whereabouts and address not being known.

The need for this amendment was brought to my attention, and to the attention of the noble Lords, Lords Crisp and Lord Frost, by a mother whose former husband had committed serious sexual acts on her son. Last June this mother attended a successful meeting of home-schooling mothers with the then responsible Minister, Stephen Morgan. It was a very successful meeting, and we thought we had made very good progress at it.

It is beyond our understanding how any father could seek to perpetrate sexual acts on his own children, boys or girls, and some as young as four years old. But it does happen and, I suggest, more frequently than we know about. Prosecuting authorities are in a difficult position and have extreme reluctance to prosecute when reliance has to be placed on a small child’s evidence. This amendment, therefore, is based on not just one mother’s concern but a universal concern for all home-schooling mothers who are now separated from an offending father and want that separation to be kept complete.

The problem is that, as drafted, the requirement on page 56 of the Bill is a requirement for the name and address of both parents to be in the register. This includes the offending father. Hence, my amendment seeks to change that wide allowance so that parents are in the register only if they

“are taking responsibility for the education of the child”.

In the helpful discussions that I have had, for which I thank my noble friend the Minister, with her officials, I have been told that the offending parent in the description that I have given will not have access to the register. This cannot be right—perhaps my noble friend will correct me. All persons named in the register must have the right to access that register—for example, just to check whether the name and address are correct. Once the offending father has access to the register, he has access to the address and whereabouts of the mother and the child. That is why I am extremely concerned, on behalf of all home-schooling mothers in a similar situation, that they should be properly protected.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope these amendments demonstrate that we have listened carefully to concerns raised by noble Lords during previous debates, and that we have acted to reduce burdens of compliance with the registration duty, while ensuring that registers contain the information necessary for local authorities to meet their education and safeguarding duties. On that basis, and on the basis of the reassurance I have provided on the other amendments, I hope the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister. She and her officials have clearly thought very carefully about the provisions of this Bill and have come to some conclusions. My difficulty is that I think they have come to the wrong conclusions, and I would therefore be very grateful—and I will be withdrawing my amendment—if my noble friend and her officials looked carefully at what I argued relating to my two sets of amendments. If there is any way they can find to accommodate my concerns, I would be very grateful.

The central point is that what I proposed in both sets of amendments was a safe way of doing it, and it must be the safe way of doing it: changing the drafting on page 58 of the Bill from the

“home address of each parent of the child”

to each parent or parents who have responsibility for their education. That is the safe way of dealing with that. Likewise, on the amount of information being sought from home-schooling parents, my amendment is the safe way of doing it. I am asking the Minister and her officials to look at the safe way relating to both sets of amendments, but having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 134A withdrawn.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hacking Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 20th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I think we have all agreed that there are troubling aspects of social media usage among young people, which are taken very seriously. It is very appropriate for parents, teachers and policymakers to be concerned and to discuss how best to help children navigate the digital world. From previous contributions, people will know that I am not sympathetic to the banning approach. I am not going to rehearse that, but I want to make a couple of points.

First, I am still very concerned about the Government’s proposed Henry VIII powers. I appreciate the sunset clause from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, but I tend to go along with the way that the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, has explained it, because we cannot just keep handing over power to the Executive and saying, “We trust you to get on with it”. I am not convinced that that trust is merited.

In general, however, I appreciate that the Government have been more open about consulting on this difficult issue. I hope that continues and I encourage the Minister, and the Government in general, to consider new evidence as it comes in. The experiment in Australia shows things not just about social media or the big tech companies, but about the way that children have got around the ban and are now using unregulated sites, with some danger to themselves. If the Government are still open, that is very important, because there are enough experts—scientists and other people working in this field—who really are concerned that the pressure for a drastic policy such as this, with social media harms becoming a go-to explanation and bans becoming a go-to solution for a wide range of the cultural and political challenges facing young people, is something we need to be careful of. Oxford psychologist Lucy Foulkes describes it as a “neat explanation”. She says that

“social media makes a nice bogeyman, but the claim is just not backed up by the data”.

Can the Minister clarify, in terms of the consultation and the gathering of information to inform policy, whether there will also be discussions about weighing up the pros and cons of bans and so on, with the unintended consequences for vital democratic freedoms? Could age-gating, for example, lead to a form of digital verification for adults, which would be illiberal? There is also the impact on socialising the young. I know we have heard that, if everyone is banning it, that is okay; I am not convinced that China banning anything is something I want to be excited about, personally. We have to weigh up whether putting an emphasis on safetyism outweighs the potential benefits of teaching young people how to negotiate the digital world, rather than just taking them off it.

On the Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, there are a couple of things that I am not sure about and need clarification on. In the phrasing

“are likely to cause, encourage or facilitate compulsive, obsessive, addictive or other unhealthy behaviours”,

“are likely to cause” seems to me to be the opposite of evidence-based. How does that decision get taken on board?

On the use of “addictive” and the allegation that these are addictive apps and so on, should we just uncritically accept that? I know that it is being used in the law courts in America, but accepting the “addiction” label medicalises bad habits and relieves the young of any responsibility for their own behaviour. Is there a danger here of teaching the young that they have no control and peddling a myth of powerlessness in relation to technology and young people’s own desire in just wanting to do things? You can imagine that, “It’s not my fault; it’s the algorithm what done it”—always blaming someone else—is a danger that undermines the lessons that young people should learn about self-discipline in order to grow up as independent moral agents.

Finally, on teaching lessons—maybe I misunderstood this—in Motion A2, under the heading,

“Supporting children’s understanding of user-to-user services”,


which sounds very educational, and obviously we are discussing a schools Bill, it seems to me that there is a danger in the curriculum of overintervention. It is one thing teaching business models and implications of online collection of children’s data. The Minister explained the issues around digital literacy well and I am all for that; it is a positive thing. But adding to primary legislation such centralised, specific demands, as they seem to be, that the national curriculum

“should contain age-appropriate material to explain the reasons for children under the age of 16 being prevented from accessing different kinds of regulated user-to-user services”

just feels to me like PR for the Bill. I am not entirely sure that it is helpful for children. It sounds far too much like politicising the agenda rather than making it open-minded.

I am involved in a schools sixth-form debating competition called Debating Matters. We have a motion that is for or against the ban on social media for under-16s. There are two sides to this debate and, even if there is law change, I would not want the curriculum to teach only one side of the debate as though it is the truth and the final word, because that would be manipulative and not right.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Nash, tabled his amendment at the first stage, when we were battling with the House of Commons on the drafting of the Bill, I gave him my support and voted against the Government. I voted against the Government not because I was against them but because, as I told my noble friend the Minister, I wanted them to have another thought about this issue. They have now had another thought about this issue and proposed legislation that is considerably stronger than the legislation we last looked at. Therefore, I welcome the position that the noble Lord has now taken.

A few years ago, in professional circumstances, I had the duty to look at some of the pornography that is available, and I have to tell your Lordships that it is quite vile. I have no reason to think that it is any better now: it is probably more vile.

The other thing that we should take strongly into account is the access that is required to get into and view the pornography that is available on the internet. It is a much bigger problem than we might perceive.

So, my present position is that I again support the noble Lord, Lord Nash, but in his more sophisticated approach of accepting the government amendments but suggesting that there could be some improvements. I hope my noble friend the Minister will accept the proposed improvements that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, has moved.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hacking Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment C1, but I will start with Amendments A1 and A2. The House may be relieved to hear that I am pretty much lost for words in responding to the Government’s position. In the face of overwhelming evidence of a need for urgency to act, most recently from court cases in the US, the Government have chosen the following route. First is to act within three years, which in practice could mean never, given the timing of a general election within that timeframe and another Government taking a different view. Secondly is to avoid putting, as my noble friend Lord Nash stressed, a clear age limit in the Bill in relation to accessing harmful social media. This is essential and entirely possible in relation to gambling and pornography, so I am unclear why the Minister says it is impossible in this case. Thirdly and finally is to omit reference to highly effective age assurance, which we know is the key element for effective implementation and is already working in relation to pornography and gambling.

Our confidence is also rattled because, as I said in an earlier round of ping-pong, the Government almost always quote the one notable charity in this area which has not signed up to the joint statement of principles for online safety signed by more than 40 other charities, and they rarely quote the evidence of health professionals, police and law enforcement bodies, and parents—including, sadly, the growing number of bereaved parents. The Minister talked again about the importance of the consultation and the fact that we have divided views on this issue, but we have divided views on just about every important issue and it is crucial that the Government take a lead on this, so I urge the House to follow the lead of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and give my noble friend’s amendment the support that it deserves.

Turning to Motion B, I recognise again that the Government really have moved in relation to this issue. The vital issues of quality of education and parental preference are now clearly set out.

On my Motion C1 on smartphones in schools, I am genuinely sorry that we are still in a position where we felt it was necessary to table another amendment to clarify the Government’s position. We welcome the progress that has been made in putting the guidance on a statutory footing and the refinement of the case studies included alongside the guidance.

As the Minister referred to, I am very grateful for the meeting I had earlier today with the honourable Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire, the Minister responsible for this policy area, who met me and my noble friend Lord Agnew earlier. I took away from that her undoubted personal commitment to see an end to the disruption and distraction caused particularly by smartphones in schools. She stated clearly in our meeting that she did not want children distracted by a smartphone vibrating in their pocket or in their book bag, and we agree with her entirely.

We welcome the comments that the Minister made just now on enforcement and the Government’s commitment to improve the guidance if it becomes apparent that the enforcement is not working. Although I would like to see it sooner—and I hope that when the Minister closes she can give us some timeframe in which the Government would commit to review that—I think the timing of the next behaviour survey would be a good moment to review it. Just to be clear, the 2024-25 behaviour survey showed that 17% of school leaders in secondaries believed that their mobile phone policies were rarely or never followed, and 34% of pupils in the same schools thought they were rarely or never followed. Or, putting it the other way around, 82% of school leaders in secondaries thought that their mobile phone policies were followed all or most of the time, compared with 38% of pupils in the same schools. Sadly, we know who is right in that regard.

Based on the Minister’s reassurance, particularly if she can give us some idea on timing, I will not test the opinion of the House today. I think the message from the Government is clear: they do not want to see “not seen, not heard” policies, particularly in relation to smartphones. To take one quote from a teenage witness in the judicial review of Montgomery and others against the Secretary of State for Education: “‘Not seen, not heard’ didn’t stop us using our smartphones at school, it just made us more discreet”. That was at an outstanding school where enforcement was claimed to be strong.

I appreciate that many noble Lords may feel that we are dancing on the head of one of the smallest pins ever manufactured, but we think this is so important because these policies outsource enforcement to chance; if a smartphone is not seen, effectively it does not exist. It creates huge amounts of work for school staff, with constant low-level boundary testing—pockets, toilets, corridors, under the desk and so forth. It is just not where we want our teachers spending their time, and we do not want children being exposed to harmful or upsetting content through the school day. Over a quarter said they were photographed against their wishes, and almost a third said they thought they would have got higher GCSE grades if they had not had smartphones in school. Educational psychologists are absolutely clear that for neurodivergent children the distraction is even more pronounced. Having a smartphone in their bag makes learning harder because it takes extra mental effort to ignore it, which can make it tougher to focus and push through when work becomes challenging.

We owe it to pupils and teachers to close the loophole in the Government’s position. I hope very much and trust that both Ministers involved will continue to push to do so. If it does not work, I hope that in short order we will see one or two sentences added to the guidance to, in the words of the Government, make it crystal-clear.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash. I have listened very carefully to my noble friend the Minister but have the greatest difficulty in understanding why you need a consultation period when dealing with those aged 16 and under. The restraint that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, seeks is to prevent them having access to pornography, which I have described in this House as vile pornography. He is proposing that from the moment the Bill comes into force, there will be a ban for under-16s. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can understand that I speak as a matter of conscience. It is why I support the noble Lord’s Motion.

I speak as a departing hereditary Peer. Regrettably, no time has been allocated for hereditary Peers to say farewell to this House. I am very sad about that, but that is the position. Would your Lordships be kind enough to listen to me, a departing hereditary Peer, saying a brief goodbye to this House?

I first entered this House 54 years ago, in 1972. The House then was very different. There were very few Peeresses—fewer than 10%—and those who were in the House nearly all wore hats. I had the very scary experience, when I was giving my maiden speech, of being attacked by the hatted Baroness Summerskill, who wrongfully attacked my maiden speech. It took me a long time to recover from that attack by the hatted Peeress.

The House in those days was much less proactive. I give a comparison. If you wanted to table an Oral Question, you would go to the Table Office and say, “Have you got a space for me on Thursday of next week?” The answer might be “No, but we can give you a space in 10 days’ time”.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

Can my noble friend come to a close? This is not an appropriate moment.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I insist on continuing to speak and am very glad to have support from the Benches over there.

I was comparing the House with the less proactive House 54 years ago and saying how you would go to the Table Office and quickly get an opportunity to table your Question. Look at it now. There is a ballot held almost daily. I do not know the number of Questions in the ballot, but it is probably 30 or 40. This is a great difference.

It has been a great honour to serve this House for over 30 years. I will miss the House and your Lordships very much indeed, but I most sincerely wish your Lordships well. In the new constitution for the House, I do hope that there is a large elected element. That is needed to get a proper constitutional balance between us and the other House.

About 40 years ago, Lord Hailsham—Quintin Hailsham—gave a lecture about the “elected dictatorship”. That is prevailing even more seriously now than it was 40 years ago, with incoming Governments with large majorities completely taking over the legislature—not only in the other House but in this House. We are seeing that during the ping-pong period that we are in now. I leave your Lordships to the ping-ponging that has to be done in the next few days and say farewell, as a hereditary Peer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for all the service that he has given over many years. It was an absolute pleasure to join him at the dining table before this debate to exchange views about his long history here and his guidance to me as one of the younger Members of your Lordships’ House. We will miss him dearly.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

Thank you very much.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

I was intending basically to agree with my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. I therefore had not intended to speak on issues around social media. However, I have to say that I agree with not only my noble friend but the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. This is a plea to the Government Ministers—both the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Lloyd, have engaged with all of us and we thank them for the time that they have taken to speak to us—that we are not that far apart.

As your Lordships can clearly tell from opinions right across the Chamber, including from the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, whom I also thank for her contributions, we all want the same thing. Here is a radical plan: why do we not all get together once, in a single room, to see if we can thrash something out, because we know that the clock is ticking. As my noble friend Lady Benjamin said, there are people out there awaiting our actions, so we clearly need to move at pace. I hope that, when the Minister gets up, she reflects on what has been said.

I will concentrate on smartphones in schools and share the comments of Paul Whiteman, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers. He said:

“School leaders are as concerned as everyone about the impact of social media and phones on children and young people. NAHT has supported calls for a ban on pupils using smartphones during the school day”.


These Benches agree with that important point. He went on to say:

“Statutory guidance will give school leaders the clarity they need to implement a ban, and will remove any ambiguity or differences between how schools approach smartphone policies. Schools will only then need to decide how to implement and enforce a ban across their school community and the government must provide any support they require to do so”.


I hope the Minister will comment on that, when she gets up.

--- 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.