Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hampton Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 1st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, on his excellent and inspiring maiden speech, and I greatly look forward to that from the noble Lord, Lord Biggar. As ever, I declare my interest as a teacher in an academy in Hackney. I am an unpaid trustee of the Elephant Group education charity, a kinship carer of twin 13 year-olds and a parent of two teenagers. I am also a hereditary Peer and this could well be my last major piece of legislation in your Lordships’ House. So, as you might say, I am quite invested in this Bill.

What a Bill it is: 137 pages, 67 clauses and four minutes to talk about it. As everyone has said, it is a Bill of two halves. On well-being, there are many things to like—the Bill needs a lot of amendments, but basically there is a lot to like. Sadly, it misses out on the ending of the defence of reasonable punishment—what better place to put that in than a Bill that talks about children’s well-being? The evidence from Wales is pretty conclusive on that one.

However, if we are to describe the “schools” part as a curate’s egg, if I were the curate, I would just eat the toast. Head teachers should be the best people to make decisions about their schools, whether they are academies or maintained. The Bill does not deal with the lack of respect of parents for schools. It decreases innovation. It takes away the autonomy and entrepreneurial spirit that has made the outstanding academies flourish, such as the UTCs already mentioned, which provide practical technical education alongside industry to get students into skilled work.

At the school where I teach, Mossbourne Community Academy, students can choose public speaking, film and media, and yoga among other mainstream subjects. How are these trailblazing schools going to continue to innovate if they have to follow slavishly the rigid and, dare I say it, rather uninspiring national curriculum? I know that charities such as Tender are worried about the lack of a national PSHE strategy, and we wait to see what the review has to say about that.

On school uniform, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will be pleased to know that, in our school, you can buy an almost-new blazer for a tenner that could potentially last a child their entire school career. The average mark-up on school uniforms is 7%, according to the Schoolwear Association. If the school uniform cap is to be on sports kit as well, then a school sports shirt will be considerably cheaper than a Premiership football shirt and will not have to be changed once a year or need to have an away shirt as well. I taught a 14 year-old girl who was pregnant, and you would never have known she was because of the blazer. Children, especially girls, change shape throughout their school time, something that a blazer hides very effectively. School uniforms can also be used, as we have heard recently, instead of suits for children to go to university interviews, thereby driving up social mobility.

We are going to be very busy in Committee, and I am afraid noble Lords have not heard the last of me.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hampton Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be very brief indeed. I just remind noble Lords that in considering the first amendment, which went on rather a long time, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who is not in her place, talked about children’s rights being the “golden spine running through” the Bill, but that is not explicit in the Bill. Amendment 14, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is a very good example of how we could be promoting children’s rights much more explicitly in the Bill.

I very much support the amendments. I will be introducing amendments myself at the very end—if anyone is still standing at that point. I had hoped to do it at the beginning. The more we can come back to this thread of children’s rights throughout the Bill, the better. I hope noble Lords will realise the importance of the amendments on children’s rights, which will be introduced at the end of the Bill.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendment 8, to which I have added my name. In this, I declare that I am one of the school of qualified teachers in this Chamber. I am also a kinship carer of twin 13-year-olds.

This is a very small but important amendment. As we have heard, the Bill attaches great importance to family decision-making. I recently had a cup of tea with my noble friend Lord Laming to ask his advice about the Bill. Sadly, he is unable to take part, but if there is one person in the House who is an absolute expert in this field, it is he. His concern—which I share, having been in decision meetings that have gone wrong—is that a badly handled meeting can do more harm than good. The wrong timing of a meeting, the participants not realising the aims or bad chairing can lead to a breakdown of trust and irreparable harm being done to a child’s future. This amendment goes a long way to making sure that the importance of an FGDM meeting is acknowledged, with the fact that it can be facilitated only by an independent, suitably trained person, and I urge the Government to accept it.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hampton Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hampton]

20: Clause 2, page 2, line 31, leave out subsections (2) to (4) and insert—
“(2) In subsection (3)—(a) omit paragraph (a) in the definition of “relevant agency”;(b) at the end of the definition of “safeguarding partner”, insert—“(d) those relevant agencies which are designated childcare or education agencies.”.(3) For the purposes of this section, a relevant agency is a “designated childcare or education agency” if it—(a) has functions relating to the provision of childcare or education (or both), and(b) is designated as such by regulations made by the Secretary of State.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to expand the definition of safeguarding partner to include all “designated childcare and education agencies” by default. It also seeks to remove the requirement that “relevant agencies” are designated by the Secretary of State.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 24 in my name, for which I am indebted to Action for Children and the Children’s Charities Coalition for their support, and to the more technical Amendments 20 and 25; I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bichard for drafting them with the Public Bill Office, while I sat there looking rather bewildered. Unfortunately, he has had to catch the last home to Gloucester, so he cannot be here.

Education settings can and often do play a vital role in safeguarding. This applies from early years to FE colleges, but is particularly important in primary and secondary schools. Including education as the fourth statutory safeguarding partner has been called for repeatedly in recent years, including by the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care and the 2022 reviews into the deaths of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson.

The question of education’s role in safeguarding was part of the consultation for the latest version of Working Together, the Government’s response to which was published in December 2023. There was very strong support across the children’s sector for this being implemented. The DfE response noted that, of 978 respondents, 69% agreed or strongly agreed that education being a statutory safeguarding partner was essential for effective local collaboration. However, the DfE noted at the time that any formalisation of education’s role through statutory guidance could happen only following legislative change. The Government committed in early 2024 to setting out a timetable for doing this, including a specific consultation on whether and how to make it work, but it was derailed by the election.

Education playing a full role as a safeguarding partner is a long-standing policy goal for many children’s charities. It was a key recommendation in the Jay review of criminally exploited children, published by Action for Children in 2024, as it was a strong theme in both the oral and written evidence submitted to the review. It was also a recommendation in Above and Beyond, Action for Children’s report on schools’ role in supporting disadvantaged children.

The difference between the amendments is whether the responsibility is given to the Secretary of State or given by default. To quote the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, please look at the intent rather than the drafting. Either way, they endeavour to make education a powerful partner in safeguarding: exactly how it should be. With that, I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

For the reasons I have outlined in responding to noble Lords, I hope that people will feel willing and able not to press their amendments. I will, as I have promised, come back on some of the practical arrangements that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, challenged me on.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

I thank noble Lords for this interesting and thought-provoking debate. I thank the Minister for her thorough explanation—I think I understood quite a lot of it. I would go along with the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, asking for maximum clarity and simplicity. I greatly look forward to the letter from the Minister which will explain a lot more of this. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 20 withdrawn.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hampton Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

61: Clause 4, page 8, leave out lines 31 to 34
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that SUIs can be used for research and commissioning purposes in order to improve outcomes for babies, children and young people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I will be quick. In moving my Amendment 61, I put on record my thanks to Laura Anderson of the National Children’s Bureau, not only for her help on this amendment but for her heroic collating of the many briefings from the children’s charity sector for a group of interested Peers.

We have talked about the SUI a lot. We know that information sharing is urgently needed—we do not need any more serious case reviews to tell us so. We know that when a child is interacting with many different services, it is important these services communicate with each other, particularly in the case of, for example, disabled children who may need the support of health services, as well as special education provision in their school, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff.

A single unique identifier can mean a better, more joined up assessment of a child’s needs and a better understanding of the impact that services make on a child’s progress and development. However, this benefit should be considered not just for individual children but children as a population group. A more holistic view of children’s needs across the local area will lead to better commissioning. A more holistic view of children’s outcomes will ensure we can evaluate what interventions work best. Yet currently, the legislation explicitly excludes research studies and evaluation from the mandated purposes of the SUI.

Using an SUI across anonymised, linked datasets could have a transformative effect on identifying risks across cohorts of children and conducting research about service impact. This would not add any considerable risk to children, as the legislation does not change or weaken any existing data protection but states explicitly that the duty to share information does not authorise or require the disclosure of information if the disclosure would contravene data protection legislation. The Government’s intention for the SUI appears focused solely on direct service provision. However, enabling local commissioners and researchers to use anonymised linked datasets could transform our understanding of the impact of particular interventions across traditional service boundaries.

Information is the new gold. We have already seen how relevant and rich data can be used to form policy in education and health, so why not take advantage of this new source of information? There seems to be a lot of saying that they are not going to be databases. Will the Minister define in her answer what she means by databases? I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I very much hope that the NHS number works, so that we can get on with data sharing. When I spoke in an earlier group, I explained the importance of feedback loops in a successful organisation. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is about using the single unique data system to inform research and commissioning. I think he has a point. The precedent of government-supported HDR UK, which I spoke about in the earlier group, is highly relevant as we found a way to anonymise such data on a consistent basis for research purposes. Indeed, the Minister might find HDR UK a useful collaborator in speeding up her excellent work and avoiding Big Brother fears.

We have heard that the single unique identifier will not be used to create a giant database. I am therefore interested in how the Government can gather aggregated data, for example by NHS trust, social service area, education authority, type of family or medical condition. Examination of such group data can reduce future mistakes and costs, target resources and improve efficiency—all the things that I tend to talk about—and make social services and the police more effective. So I would appreciate an answer about how this can be done if we are ruling out a database—by letter if need be, because it obviously goes slightly beyond the scope of the amendment. I am grateful for all the information that has been given today. It has been very reassuring.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

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

Amendment 61 withdrawn.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hampton Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I am very sorry to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I believe he totally misunderstands the point of the amendment so ably introduced by my noble friend Lady Finlay. He used “smacking” quite a lot. I will never use that word myself, because it trivialises what we mean. We are talking about a hit—about a physical assault on a child. The reasonable chastisement defence is only ever likely to be used in a court of law, and it has been.

As I think we know, the rationale is that every battery of a child starts with a hit, but not every hit of a child leads to battery. One recent case illustrates the point. On the first day of the trial of the killers of Sara Sharif in 2024, the prosecutor, Bill Emlyn Jones, told jurors that Urfan Sharif called British police, having fled to Pakistan after Sara’s death. He said:

“He used what you may think is an odd expression. He said: ‘I legally punished her and she died’”.


I wonder where he got that phrase. I can tell your Lordships: it appears in Section 58 of the Children Act 2004, and for the last 20 years, I and others have tried to delete it. The presence of those words in the law sends a message that it can be lawful to beat a little child.

Back in 2002, the Adoption and Children Act acknowledged the damage done to children from witnessing violence in the home. So long as the reasonable chastisement defence remains, babies and children who witness violence still have greater legal protection than those who are directly assaulted.

Emlyn Jones said that Urfan Sharif also told the police:

“I beat her up. It wasn’t my intention to kill her, but I beat her up too much”.


An intention to kill is not necessary. An intention to cause serious harm is sufficient for a murder conviction if death ensues. The prosecutor said that a note in Urfan Sharif’s handwriting was found next to his daughter’s body, which read:

“I swear to God that my intention was not to kill her. But I lost it”.


Sara had more than 70 injuries to her ribs, shoulders, fingers, spine and brain, and a burn from a domestic iron to her buttock. She had numerous bruises, scald marks from hot water, restraint injuries, and human bite marks. These injuries did not occur on one occasion when her father “lost it”.

This sort of case is not new. When Maria Colwell died in January 1973, she had black eyes, fractured ribs and brain damage. This was inflicted by her mother and stepfather, William Kepple. Kepple was convicted of Maria’s murder in April 1973, but the charge was later reduced to manslaughter. Officials repeated the mantra: “It must never happen again”. But it has, and it does.

Victoria Climbié, who died on 25 February 2000, was rushed to hospital suffering from hypothermia, weighing just three stone and ten pounds and suffering 128 injuries.

In arguably one of the most notorious child deaths, Peter Connelly, known in the media as baby P, died in London on 3 August 2007, aged just 17 months, after suffering more than 50 injuries. He had been seen 60 times by healthcare professionals and social workers.

On 3 March 2012, four year-old Daniel Pełka died after being severely battered by his mother and her partner. Daniel had suffered 22 injuries, including 10 to his head.

Arthur Labinjo-Hughes was murdered after months of abuse in 2020. Arthur, aged six, was tortured to death by his father, Thomas Hughes, and stepmother. After months of horrific abuse, he was starved and poisoned with large quantities of salt. When he died, his skeletal body was covered with 130 bruises and he suffered 93 different areas of injury.

On 22 September 2020, Savannah Brockhill caused baby Star Hobson catastrophic injuries after inflicting months of brutal abuse alongside her mother. Medics said that her injuries were usually seen only in car crash victims. Boris Johnson vowed that action would be taken to stop such shocking and heartbreaking tragedies in future, but it has not been taken. Many other fatal cases have hit the headlines, and there have been hundreds of beaten children who did not die but were marked for life by their experience. Briefings we have received from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health have made it clear that hitting children is not harmless; it is harmful.

Yes, there were serious shortcomings in the actions or inactions of various public services in the cases I have just outlined, but the social workers and police did not kill these children; their parents and carers did. They did it because they thought they could get away with it. Every terrible beating started with a single hit, a single physical assault: the sort of thing that recently lost an MP his seat and his liberty.

The reason why these children died was that they did not have the voice or ability to stop it and they were not sufficiently protected by the law. If the early stages of any one of these cases had been perpetrated on an adult, the attacker would have been imprisoned long before the pattern of assault became fatal. The fact is that children do not have equal protection against assault under the law, because of the excuse expressed in the chilling words “reasonable punishment”. These assaults are not reasonable by any measure, and they are not punishment either.

No child was ever naughty enough to deserve such abuse. It is not punishment; it is an expression of the anger, hatred and frustration of the perpetrator, leading to actions that should be classed as criminal, without mitigation. These children are calling from the grave to make them so. Let us do it at last by carrying this amendment.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 67 and 505 in the name of my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff, to which I have added my name and to which she spoke so eloquently. I am afraid that I am unable to comment on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, because my cerebral cortex received so many messages of complaint that it shut down quite early on.

I have lived on this planet for 60 years, I have been a parent for 20 years, a cricket coach for 15 years, a teacher for 10 years and a kinship carer for over a year, and I have never hit, slapped or smacked anybody, except one unfortunate time in a tour game against Tredegar Ironsides, and the opposition scrum-half started it.

As has been mentioned, this is the children’s well-being Bill, but it is quietly going on its way without mentioning a fundamental problem of well-being: legalised violence against children. That is what we are talking about. Not a quick clip around the ear, not a short, sharp shock that teaches them right or wrong. Not something that was done to us and we are no worse for it. No, we are grooming our children to believe that violence is acceptable by the powerful against the weak for their own good. That is not an acceptable message.

I believe that the results from Wales and Scotland are showing no major increase, if any, in prosecutions. I suspect that, for most people, it will not be a surprise that hitting a child is a bad idea, so a change in the law would remove the defence only for those who really aim to harm children. The rule of thumb is an urban myth. It has never been acceptable to hit women. Why do we still allow violence against children?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I will briefly speak to Amendment 172, to which I added my name. My noble friend Lord Meston and my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss have said it far better than I possibly could. I know the amazing work of Pause and I commend its work to the Committee. I have full faith that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, will say anything that is missing.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 69B in my name and in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, as well as the other amendments in this group. Amendment 69B seeks to ensure that children in kinship care and their carers can be referred to as a “kinship family”. Using the term “kinship families” would allow for the correct dignity, respect and acknowledgement that they are indeed a family unit. Currently, the use of “kinship carers” and “children in kinship care” does not fully recognise that they are a family unit. This amendment seeks to ensure that the whole family is able to access the necessary support, as set out by the local authority.

Amendment 71 seeks to ensure that, when a local authority updates its kinship care offer, it proactively consults kinship families. These kinship families play an integral role in understanding the effectiveness of the local offer, as they are the ones in situ who are receiving the support and as such, their opinion and understanding of such delivery is essential to enhance the overall service as and when required.

This amendment would also require the offer to be reviewed annually rather than from time to time. We believe that such a vague timescale opens up the possibility for local authorities, which are dealing with a multitude of tasks at any one time, to allow, through no direct fault of their own, such a review to remain unaddressed for a material amount of time without the subject matter being considered, which would negatively affect the kinship families in that local area.

To be clear, and as referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, in the previous group, local authorities are always trying to do their best—that is not in doubt. But this amendment cements best practice to ensure that the kinship care offering can be continually improved in line with feedback.

As drafted, the Bill does not make reference to any details surrounding how a local authority must review and update its kinship care local offer, so this amendment provides further detail about how and when such a review must be conducted.

Amendment 70, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, seeks to include legal support and family decision-making on the list of services a local authority can provide to support the local kinship families. This amendment seems entirely sensible as there may well be situations in which kinship families need these services. When family group decision-making processes are taking place, it is right that the kinship care family should be aware.

Amendment 72, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, seeks to require local authorities to publish the comments they receive and how they have addressed these comments. It is similar to my Amendment 71 as it recognises the importance of understanding how local families interact with the care offer and their opinions on its effectiveness, which should be a good thing.

Amendment 103, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, seeks to extend the pupil premium to children in a kinship care arrangement. While we understand that kinship placements are an essential part of the social care system, a decision such as this would potentially involve a significant commitment from the Treasury, and as such would require a full financial impact assessment before further decisions could be made.

Amendments 104 and 146 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, seek to extend the rights of kinship carers so that they receive an allowance and are able to take leave in a similar way to other employees. It is certainly important that the attractiveness and prospect of becoming a kinship carer is not reduced because of financial difficulty, and it is vitally important to recognise the importance of kinship carers and ensure that the system works in practice. We would urge His Majesty’s Government to consider ways to reduce barriers to entry for kinship carers so that the number of children in children’s homes can be reduced. I beg to move.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 72 in my name and remind the House that I am a kinship carer of twin 13 year-olds. I also thank Kinship for its help in this.

The Bill recognises the vital role that kinship carers play and strengthens welcome reforms which improve support for kinship carers. However, some of the Government’s stated policy objectives associated with the Bill’s provisions are unlikely to be realised without additional reform and the Bill ultimately falls short of delivering the vital education on the mental health support that children in kinship care urgently need.

Making the kinship local offer a legal requirement through new legislation is welcome. In Kinship’s 2024 annual survey, a third of kinship carers rated the information provided about kinship care by their local authorities “very poor”, and only 7% of kinship carers said in 2023 that they had seen their local authority’s existing family and friends care policy—something local authorities have been required to deliver since 2011.

A new legal duty and more comprehensive guidance around the content and delivery of this information should help kinship carers to better understand and access available support. However, as outlined by Kinship’s associate director of policy and public affairs when providing oral evidence to the Education Committee last month, the local offer’s impact will be to magnify the lack of support available to kinship families, particularly those with informal arrangements or where a legal order was made in private proceedings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I support the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend, which, as she set out, aim to simplify the process for approving kinship carers, balancing the importance of robust safeguards with greater flexibility and discretion within the process to speed it up in the best interests of the child.

As we heard in the previous group, kindship carers are an essential part of our care system, and their benefits are well known. Research indicates that, on average, children in kinship care achieve higher GCSE scores compared with those in non-kin foster care, and significantly higher than all looked-after children or children in need. Children in kinship care also experience better mental health and overall well-being compared with those in other out-of-home care settings, with the familial environment contributing to these positive outcomes. In addition, children in kinship care are more likely to remain in the same area and school, maintaining continuity in their social and educational environments, and are more likely to experience better long-term outcomes, including reduced involvement with the criminal justice system and improved employment prospects.

However, as my noble friend set out in her opening remarks, under the current system, many of those wanting to provide this form of care face significant hurdles because the assessment frameworks for kinship carers are modelled largely on foster care standards and can include checks and interviews that can feel invasive or inappropriate in the context of family caregiving.

While, of course, there needs to be a careful balance and assessment made between the benefits of placing a vulnerable child with kinship carers, with whom—as we have heard—they will already have had a long-standing relationship, and a clear-headed evaluation of any potential risks and safeguarding issues, the current approval process can be unduly slow, causing delays in placing children with family during critical early moments. As we have heard, this means children may be placed informally for long periods with no proper support while assessments drag on, creating significant delays and exclusions. Some of the criteria around housing and income in particular can lead to the exclusion of willing, loving relatives being able to provide care for vulnerable young people within their kinship group.

With the inclusion of the new kinship offer in the Bill, it is clear that the Government recognise the value of kinship carers and are looking to provide greater support and continuity of support to them. I hope the Minister will carefully consider my noble friend’s amendments, which, taken together, offer a thoughtful, balanced reappraisal of the current process and, I believe, would enhance the impact of the measures already contained in the Bill.

Amendment 76, which would require the Secretary of State to carry out a full review assessing the effectiveness of the current pathways for approval within 12 months of Royal Assent, would also provide the Government with the opportunity to look at the practical impacts of these amendments, so that they can be changed or built on, depending on the effects they have had.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendments 73, 74, 75, 76 and 76A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to which I have added my name. I am in that dangerous position where I am between your Lordships and supper, so I am going to keep it very short, given that I spoke at length about kinship care in the last group. These are extraordinarily sensible amendments that would speed things up and make it easier for kinship carers to be kinship carers. I heartily approve.

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

My Lords, I will also speak incredibly briefly to the amendments in this group. Obviously, we need protections in place, but I think that across the Chamber we are all agreed that we want to make kinship care a viable option for as many people as possible. These amendments help to do just that by removing some of the hurdles and hoops, and I am very much in support of them.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hampton Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 80, which

“seeks to include career and employment opportunities as a part of educational achievement”.

I have spoken many times in this Chamber, and will probably do so again, about the need to ensure that we an educational system that prevents young people becoming NEET.

I will share some statistics with noble Lords. There are 354,000 young people who are unemployed and actually seeking work who are NEET, and 569,000 who are economically inactive and not seeking work. According to the Department for Education’s 2025 report, 41% of care leavers aged 19 to 21 were deemed to be NEET. I add to this that I discovered recently that 66% of young people in Feltham young offender institution and 25% of the adult prison population had been in care. I have no doubt that these figures will ring alarm bells for all of us, and so they should, so what can we do about them?

The main factors that contribute to these figures—the main reason why these young people are in the position they are and NEET—are educational disruption; poor mental health and emotional well-being; lack of stable housing; limited support networks; stigma and discrimination by employers for those young people who have been in care; and inadequate transition planning when they move from education to employment. It is this last point that I will focus on. I hope that all noble Lords, including the Minister, will agree that we must have a system that prepares all young people, in particular those who have been or continue to be in care, to make an effective transition from education to work.

My first question is: can the Minister tell us what tailored and individual careers advice and coaching the Bill will put in place, working with the DWP and all its great partners, to ensure that young people get the service they need? How will the Bill bring employers into the lives of young people at a much earlier stage and dispel the negative assessment they make which keeps these young people out of the workplace? Will she please ensure that every educational establishment publishes its NEET tables, so that we can see what is working, do more of it and help those who are not doing so well? Prevention is much more effective than cure. It costs less in financial terms and puts young people on the right path. It was explained to me that it is better to be a fence at the top of the cliff than the ambulance at the bottom, and I am sure that noble Lords will agree.

One of the most enjoyable experiences I have had in this House was to be a member of the Public Services Committee, which is so ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley. Before I left that committee, we produced a report entitled Think Work First: The Transition from Education to Employment for Young Disabled People, but its findings, although they concern specific help for disabled people, have resonance with all young people.

The second recommendation in that report says:

“The Government should work with local authorities to improve the availability of ‘ready to work’ programmes such as that provided by ThinkForward”.


Another happy moment in my career was to develop and deliver the prototype for ThinkForward. I can tell noble Lords that it works and it can be done. It can be done in schools, where the coaches are part of the school management team. Young people at risk of becoming NEET are identified very early and get a dedicated coach who is on the journey with them. The results are that 85% of the 14 to 16 year-olds involved showed significant improvements in attendance; 60% of the school leavers achieved at least five GCSEs at grades A to C; and 96% of the 17 to 18 year-olds were in education, employment or training. I know that ThinkForward and other organisations would be more than happy to work with the Government, and it was a private equity foundation that put the funding model in place to make sure that it worked, so not every penny came from the Government—I hope that that might excite the Minister. So, it can be done, it must be done, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that it will be done.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 79 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. Following the statistical barrage from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, I shall give some more. According to the Drive Forward Foundation, children in care on average achieve an Attainment 8 score that is less than half of the overall pupil population. Just 14% of care leavers go on to university, compared with 47% of all young people. Some 22% of care leavers say that they always or often feel lonely, compared with 10% of all young people, and 15% of care leavers report that they do not have a good friend, compared with 5% of all adults. One in three care leavers becomes homeless in the first two years after they leave care, and 52% of children in care have a criminal conviction by the age of 24, compared with 13% of non-care-experienced children. One line in the Bill could achieve so much.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 164 in the names of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and my noble friend Lord Russell of Liverpool. I omitted to declare my interests as a teacher and a kinship carer, but your Lordships probably know of those by now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 134, 143 and 178. Fostering is critical to the provision of good care for all children who need it, and it is a really tough job.

In Committee so far, not very much has been said about the very large proportion of looked-after children who have significant special needs—it is more than 90% of all children in children’s homes, and it is over 70% of all looked-after children. Many of those are problems that have arisen as a result of post-birth experience, but there are quite a lot of instances where these are problems that children were born with and will be with them for life. Some children are in foster care precisely because their birth parents have not been able to cope with their significant needs, so we ask a tremendous amount of foster carers.

The measures in the amendment to improve on the current position are very welcome. But the Government could go further in some very practical ways, which is why I support my noble friend’s amendments. Room sharing is not always appropriate, but for some children it will be suitable. Similarly, foster carers need more authority to make more of the decisions and do more of the often everyday things that parents do.

I support the comments made about the need for streamlined recruitment processes and a foster care strategy that really thinks about the support services, training, respite and wider services that help foster carers to do it well, to feel that they have the capacity and that they can sustain the tremendous effort of foster caring through the whole period that any given child needs it. There is an opportunity here.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 143 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, to which I added my name and to which the noble Lord, Lord Bird, spoke so powerfully. I thank the Nationwide Association of Fostering Providers for its help on this.

As we have heard, this amendment aims to ensure that the challenges within foster care services are both recognised and addressed. With a well-defined strategy in place to oversee necessary reforms to the system, we can ensure that local authorities are no longer burdened by the unstable expense of children’s social care.

Many foster-children feel that their new home has given them a new chance, and they feel like a genuine part of the family. Foster carers overwhelmingly say that being a foster-parent has had a positive impact on their lives, as they provide love and support to vulnerable children.

Independent fostering agencies—IFAs—play a huge role in providing high-quality care for children: some 96% of IFAs are rated “Good” or “Outstanding” by Ofsted.

While the Government’s commitment to the foster care system since the general election is a positive step, it is vital that any interventions go beyond short-term fixes. This is why we need to see the introduction of a dedicated foster care strategy to provide strategic oversight to the tactical pledges made previously.

There are welcome measures outlined in the Bill to regulate and introduce oversight of independent fostering agencies. However, given that these IFAs make up a significant proportion of the sector, without a dedicated foster care strategy, which provides insight into the Government’s ambitions for the sector, this already precarious sector is unable to plan effectively for the future. Ultimately, without addressing the underlying causes of pressure in children’s social care, such efforts risk falling short of delivering lasting impact.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hampton Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 170 and lend my support to the other eminently sensible amendments in this group. They all, individually, beg the question: why would we not? I implore the Government to consider these gaps, which have been so carefully thought through and proposed before the Committee today. If Committee serves any purpose, it must be to collaborate and work for the benefit of the children we are talking about.

I will not rehearse the points I made on the first group today. The data point, under Amendment 170, drives at the same point. I ask the Minister to think carefully, because I had almost anticipated that her previous answer would address the data required already under the Children Act. So I carefully focused this amendment on the gaps where the data is not already required—that is to address sufficiency in care homes overall.

A body of science around attachment and trauma now emphatically supports the case for providing secure and stable environments for young people—including young adults, because the brain is not fully developed until well into the 20s. This debate is very timely, in the wake of the grooming gangs story and the Casey report, which has just been published. When children have not been securely attached and have been moved into and out of care, they are at their most vulnerable. They are the most susceptible to risk, the most vulnerable to being preyed on and the most easily seduced by any kindness whatever, so the wolf in sheep’s clothing is a particularly dangerous scenario. It is time that we dispense with unregulated accommodation, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness for her comments and her extensive experience of that.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 165. In the spirit of brevity pioneered by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I also support Amendment 118 in his name and Amendment 144 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Watson of Invergowrie and Lord Russell of Liverpool. As a teacher, I can only quote the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson of Welton: they are so sensible that you are surprised they are not law already.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I added my name to those of the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Hampton, on Amendment 165. It replicates an amendment tabled in the other place that got strong support. The background is that, sadly, more and more homeless people are being accepted under the homelessness legislation and placed in temporary accommodation. By the nature of that legislation, most of those people are families and they will have children. A child in temporary accommodation is obviously in a less advantageous position than a child coming from a stable background. So we need to do all we can to make sure that child gets access to the services that he or she is entitled to before—hopefully, not after too long—they are placed in suitable long-term accommodation.

The amendment simply requires the local authority to notify the GP and the school of the child’s circumstances. As my noble friend Lady Sanderson said, this should be good practice and Manchester does it. If I were the head of a primary school, I would want to know which of my pupils were in temporary accommodation. If I were a GP, I would also want to know which of my child patients were in temporary accommodation. A GP is meant to treat the patient as well as the illness. There are real risks of a child being off-rolled by a school because the head simply did not know that they were in temporary accommodation, they had decided to stay at the same school from which they were moved and the bus just takes longer to get there. Likewise, if they are not registered with a GP, they may miss out on prescriptions and all the other universal services that they are entitled to. So this simply seeks the establishment, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said, of a formal notification protocol.

After the debate—again, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, referred to this—there was a meeting with the Ministers concerned. Looking at the record of that meeting, it does not seem to me that there were any game-changers that meant that this could not happen. Yes, there are some technical issues that need addressing—perhaps some change to the technology used by local authorities so that these things are done automatically rather than manually, as is the case at the moment—but given that the title of the Bill includes the words “Children’s Wellbeing”, it seems to me that this is something the Minister could smile on and perhaps agree to, with, if necessary, changes on Report.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hampton Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Finally, I realise that the Minister will no doubt say that we have to await the publication of the child poverty strategy, which has been postponed until the autumn. Whatever one thinks of that delay, and there are arguments for and against it, the time must be used by those at the very top of government to make the case publicly for why the child poverty strategy is so important—indeed, the Government’s moral mission—and if, as I hope is the case, it is now accepted that the two-child limit and, I would argue, the benefit cap, must go, explain why this is the fair thing to do. Otherwise, I fear that trying to meet any target, however modest, would be like running up a down escalator, far from the very welcome promise of an ambitious strategy.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 163, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bird, to which I added my name. One of the advantages of membership of this House is the free subscription to the New Statesman, which recently devoted a whole issue to Britain’s child poverty epidemic. From it, I will quote Andrew Marr, who wrote that

“child poverty is inescapably central to any party with a sense of justice and fairness—it creates damage for a lifetime”.

As a teacher, I am increasingly aware of the growing research that shows that education is not the leveller that we thought it was. What comes in goes out. Poverty, lack of opportunities, transport and cultural capital all impact on a child’s progress and attainment. As Gordon Brown said, it costs more not to invest in children than to invest in them. We have déjà vu here. Once again, like the curriculum review, the Bill is arriving before a crucial report. This amendment, so movingly and passionately introduced by my noble friend, enshrines that the findings of the child poverty strategy are acted on. If they are not, a lot of work that we have been doing on this Bill will eventually be proven to have been expensively wasted.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for his tour de force. One thing he did not say was that, as soon as children, particularly children from low-income families, go into school, the gap in their learning narrows as a result of child poverty. Growing up in poverty is strongly linked to lower educational outcomes, worse health and reduced lifetime earnings. As of 2022-23, 4.3 million children, 29%, in the UK lived in relative poverty. Rates are higher for single-parent and minority-ethnic families. An estimated £500 million in unpaid child maintenance exists, and many lone parents do not receive the money that is due to them. The Child Poverty Act 2010 led to measurable progress until—and this is crucial—the targets were removed in 2016. During that period, child poverty fell from 28% to 20%.

We could all get involved in talking about the effects of child poverty, but the amendment is about saying, “We need to have targets”, and that is absolutely right. You cannot go on a journey unless you know what you want to achieve and measure as you go along. I will repeat the evidence to support that: the Child Poverty Act 2010 had targets, and it led to improvements. As soon as those targets were removed, child poverty fell from 28% to 20%. What does that tell us? Does that tell us targets are right or that they are not the best way of moving forward? I do not know, but my common sense tells me that you need to have targets to understand where you are going. I do not understand what I am saying, to be quite honest, because I thought the targets were—

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hampton Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 23rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

It is perfectly possible for children to log in on different devices. They can log into a social media account and the school can use broader control facilities to ensure that all information is wiped, or all personal details are wiped, at the end of a session. That contains the range of what children are doing in any given session.

To give another analogy, we do not teach children about the risks and harms of drugs with drugs and the paraphernalia for using them in their hands or on their desks. More generally, I am afraid that the history of teaching children about risks and sensible and safe behaviour do not have that much to show that they can be successful.

One of the saddest reports that we published during my time at Ofsted was on child obesity. It showed, sadly, that the schools that were doing the most to promote and encourage healthy eating did not have measurably different obesity rates from the schools that were doing the least. So I think there is reason to fear that simply an educational approach, as has also been advocated here, might not be all that effective.

Finally, I will explain why, although I agree with so much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, I have come to the opposite conclusion. It is important that we think about how to reinforce the authority of head teachers and teachers in this difficult space. With legislation, they would not have to argue the toss with parents to sustain a school policy that will always be disliked by some parents. What we have seen and heard, including expressed so eloquently in this Chamber today, shows that mobile phone use by the young is likely to be at least as harmful to them as smoking, and we have no difficulty with having a ban on smoking in schools. I believe that a ban will reduce arguments and give time back to schools—to heads and teachers—as well as helping children. So I hope that this amendment will be included in the final Bill.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 458 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and my noble friend Lady Kidron. I have spoken on this issue several times in your Lordships’ House, and I will not repeat those speeches here. I am a teacher and have taught for 10 years, but never in a school that allows students outside the sixth form to carry phones to or in school. My noble friend Lady Cass says about mobile phones that the stakeholder view and desire for action in this area is overwhelming. I will talk not about the separate issue of whether smartphones themselves are harmful but rather about whether they should be in school at all for the under-16s.

Students who do not carry phones do not get mugged for phones. In schools that do not allow mobile phones, students talk to each other at break and lunchtime, or play games or go to clubs, rather than staring at their phones. So I am about to be rather brave here: for the first time I am going to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley—at the same time. I do not think that an exception for educational purposes would be workable. You cannot teach these students how to use phones; they know far better than we do. What you can teach them are the dangers. Again, I am going to do a first here and say that it might be rather better on a PowerPoint slide than doing it practically. I really worry about 30 students in a room with their mobile phones—what carnage could happen there? But this is back of a fag packet stuff.

The excuse quite often is that carers need to communicate with people. Actually, carers do not need phones; they need time away to be children. Quite often, the people they are caring for can be very demanding, and sometimes too demanding. Schools are very good at getting messages to students in emergencies. If it is not an emergency, perhaps the child does not need to know right away. Parents do not need to know exactly where their children are at every given moment. If there are emergencies with transport, they can go to a responsible adult and ask for a message to be sent or to borrow a phone. We managed over 100 years in education without mobile phones in schools—why start now?

The Minister said recently that it is up to school heads to make the decision. At a time when, with this Bill, decisions about uniform, pay, admissions and the curriculum are being taken away from school leaders, I think a lot of them would be secretly delighted to have the Government take this decision away from them and take the lead on it, allowing them just to police the phone ban without getting the blame.

Children need time to be children: to learn, to play, to interact and to build and rebuild friendships, face to face. Leaving aside the view of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, which I can see—but schools can provide the technology themselves—none of these is improved with a mobile phone.

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 177, 183CA, 183CB and 458. As my noble friends Lord Nash, Lord Bethell, Lady Penn and many others have so eloquently laid out, the devastating impact of social media on children is not speculative anymore. It is an irrefutable fact. Social media, as many have said, is addictive; it impedes brain development and exposes children to sexual predators and harmful content, including body imaging. It is fuelling a crisis in adolescent mental health. Last year, more than 800,000 children under 18 needed NHS mental health support. This is a national crisis.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hampton Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, education is frequently described as a great leveller: a powerful force to close the gap between opportunity and background, between privilege and disadvantage. As someone who experienced that divide, I can say that unless we tackle entrenched inequalities that quietly shape a child’s journey before they even enter the classroom, that idea will remain stubbornly out of reach.

That is why I will speak on two amendments to the Bill. They might seem modest in terms of admin but they carry immense significance for families across the country. Amendments 195 and 201 have been tabled alongside the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. They focus on a subject that is too often overlooked in our education debates: the affordability of school uniforms. Specifically, I propose a statutory monetary cap on the cost of branded school uniform items and an extension of VAT zero rating to include all compulsory school uniform items for pupils up to the age of 16.

These are not abstract proposals; they are informed by data from the Child Poverty Action Group. In 2024, approximately 4.5 million children lived in poverty, with 2.9 million living in deep poverty, meaning that their household’s mean income was below 50% of the median income. The amendments are also informed by personal experiences and by listening closely to families, teachers and welfare advisers who witness the strain at first hand.

I grew up in inner city Sheffield in the 1980s, a working-class child in a household that often struggled to meet ends. My father, like many, worked in the local steel industry. When he lost his job, we lost our financial security. I know intimately what it feels like to rely on free school meals and I benefited from school clothing grants, not as a charity but as a lifeline. The grants provided by Sheffield City Council, at the time under the leadership of David Blunkett—now the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett—meant that I could walk to school on my first day wearing a jacket and shoes that fitted and a jumper that did not single me out. It gave me more than clothing: it gave me confidence, and that in turn allowed me to focus on learning rather than surviving.

It is that lived experience that brings me to this Bill with urgency and conviction. I turn first to the statutory monetary cap on branded uniforms. In 2024, the average cost of compulsory secondary school uniforms and sportswear stood at just over £92 per pupil. That figure is already burdensome on many families, but it often disguised a more troubling reality—the steep and sometimes punitive cost of branded school items. In recent years, we have seen the provision of branded and school-specific clothing, logoed jumpers, custom trousers, embroidered polo shirts, and even branded socks. One school in West Yorkshire required 10 different branded items, none of which could be purchased in supermarkets or high street stores. These requirements are no longer about promoting school identity; they have become a barrier to participation.

The consequences are clear. In 2023, research showed that 18% of families borrowed money to pay for uniforms, 10% missed rent payments and 27% struggled to cover energy costs, all so their child could comply with school dress codes. This is not just a matter of inconvenience; it is about access. As one 14 year-old said, “You need it for every day and it costs a lot of money and there are some people who don’t go to school because of the uniform. It ruins your education”.

Despite existing Department for Education guidance that encourages schools to limit branded items, compliance remains inconsistent, and 70% of secondary schools still require five or more branded items. That tells us that the voluntary guidance has reached a limit. What is needed now is a legislative floor—something firm, fair and enforceable. That is why I propose a statutory monetary cap, tailored by phase of education and reviewed annually. This would ensure that no child is excluded or penalised simply because their family cannot afford a school’s preferred uniform. Schools will still set their uniform policy, but they will do so within a reasonable, defined cost ceiling. In doing so, we would also encourage schools to adopt a more affordable and flexible approach, such as allowing iron-on logos or sew-on patches for supermarket-bought garments and improved access to second-hand uniform schemes.

I turn to the VAT issue, which is even more egregious in its injustice. Under current UK VAT laws, a school uniform item for a child over 14, or for a child taller than 1.2 metres, is taxed at the standard rate of 20%. This includes blazers, trousers, shirts and even footwear, despite these items being compulsory and often identical in form to those worn by younger pupils. To give your Lordships an example, a school blazer in size 36 might be VAT-free but the same blazer in size 38, required by a taller pupil due simply to growth, is taxed. This means that the families most likely to face additional costs during adolescence are hit hardest. It is a system that penalises families for their growing teenagers. We would not dream of taxing GCSE textbooks, so why do we tax the clothing required to sit in the same classroom?

According to the Schoolwear Association, parents in England are paying close to £9 million annually in VAT on school-specific uniforms. That is equivalent to around £2,604 per year per secondary school—money that could be far better spent on food, housing and transport. Removing VAT on all compulsory school uniform items up to the age of 16 is a clean and easily implemented solution. It reflects the reality that school attendance is mandatory up to age 16 and that school uniforms are not an optional accessory but a requirement.

I emphasise that this is not about undermining school identity or discipline. I support the principle of a smart, cohesive uniform, but smartness must mean affordability and identity should not mean exclusion. If Parliament adopts these two amendments, capping school uniform costs and removing VAT, we could go further. We could reinstate the Sheffield school clothing grant scheme from the 1980s and offer a modern form of school clothing support for families on free school meals or universal credit, for example, whether through digital vouchers, local authority grants or school-managed credits. This is about designing support systems that match the realities that families face, because the cost of not acting is far higher than any tax foregone.

When a child feels ashamed to walk to school or sits in a classroom worried about how they look, they learn less, their confidence flattens and their attendance drops. Teachers and heads know this, and increasingly they are personally covering the gap, reaching into their own pockets, running second-hand shops, and making judgment calls between discipline and compassion. This is not how we should run our schools. In the sixth-richest country in the world, no child should be left behind because their shoes do not fit or their jumper lacks a crescent.

This Bill and these amendments offer a chance to say that we see the child behind the blazer, the family behind the invoice and the value behind the policy. This is not about handouts; it is about dignity. It is about a society that does not penalise children and it is about reaffirming in practical strategic terms our belief in equality. I urge your Lordships to support these amendments, not just because they are fair and efficient but because they are right. Sometimes real change does not come in the form of grand reform or a national strategy; sometimes it starts with a blazer—a blazer that fits.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 196 and 197 and declare, as ever, that I am a teacher at a state academy in east London.

Before I talk to these amendments, I want to rather cheekily add a little thing. Given that the Minister kindly committed to getting the Keeping Children Safe in Education guidance out in good time for the inset days in August, is there any progress on the recent news that the framework has been delayed and is going to be published only this month? There is a lot of concern among our safeguarding heads about this uncertainty, and I wonder if the Minister could write to me about that.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hampton Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Lords Chamber

If you look at the statistics, last year the number of children in England who were home-educated was about 111,000. The 15,000 children who are caring for 50 hours or more, more than 13%, are a significant proportion of home-educated children. I think that we have a moral duty to recognise the enormous help that those children are providing through no wish of their own to the care system. However, the enormous burden that is placed on them needs to be recognised, and I hope that the solution that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young, has found—with, I understand, the active support and engagement of the Government—will happen, because these children deserve all the help that we can give them.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I was going to rise very briefly to speak to Amendments 243, 249 and 260 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to which I added my name, but the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, has put it far better than I possibly could. I was going to talk about concerns about the home-schooling fraternity, but my noble friend Lord Crisp has put it far better than I could. I have also been persuaded by my noble friend Lord Russell and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, that Amendment 251 is extremely powerful. I am greatly looking forward to the Minister’s reply to these powerful arguments.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I should just say “ditto” to that, should I not? What the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said is hugely important, as is the response from the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and the words of my noble friend Lady Spielman. It is unclear how this set of amendments is going to work. It unclear whether they are proportionate. We would like to get a good understanding. We can see that there is a purpose and that they are important, but we have concerns about how the demands of this Bill fit with reality and are going to work in particular circumstances. I will not go into the detail of the amendments that I have in that space—I will wait for the Minister’s reply—but I will pick up on some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Wei on his amendments. Amendment 245 provides that, if a private tutor teaches online and never sees the child in their home, there should be no need for that tutor to supply a private address. There are other aspects. It appears that a company has to provide details of all the people it employs. What happens with online companies where you are not interfacing with anyone at any obvious location but are just interfacing with the software? It is really hard to read what you are supposed to produce and why it is reasonable to produce it.

Amendment 248 highlights the absurdity of trying to quantify every minute. Many parents rightly say that their children learn continuously through conversation, trips and hobbies, without rigid slots. Precise time-logging is trying to force home education into a classroom straitjacket.

Amendment 260 and, in particular, Amendment 261, which my noble friend Lord Frost has supported, seek to address what is breathtakingly open-ended stuff. What is required here and why? What is the underlying purpose being served? We have to be careful about going in for open-ended data collection. Those of us who have been here for a while will remember what happened after we passed RIPA, and the way in which local authorities started using it to find out parents who might be cheating when it came to saying what their address was in school applications. Anything that is collected under such a register does not just sit quietly in a database; it becomes available throughout government and will be swept up into the profiling systems used by the police and the security authorities.

We know from history and from the work of those such as Professor Eileen Munro that these systems tend to record deficits, not strengths, and to build up negative pictures of people. This results in children from black and other ethnic minorities being racially profiled as being bad. People worry about them and so something appears in the database, and then they are seen as a problem. That information will appear everywhere that the authorities look them up. We need to be really careful about how we allow information to be collected.

I do not see any practical provision that would allow anyone to know what is on the register or to correct what is on it. There must be some process for making it accurate when the local authority has added stuff of its own volition—it does not have to tell anyone that it has done so, and the information might be completely daft and inaccurate. There is no provision for how information should be assessed and removed. We need to look carefully at this. Dr Stephen Crossley’s work on the troubled families programme illustrates that this leads to intrusive interventions justified by mass data trawling and families being

“bullied to no good effect”,

with little evidence of positive outcomes.

In this area, we should legislate with humility about what the state can know and manage and about what is useful and practical. We should be careful about turning supportive families into defensive ones, educational flourishing into compliance anxiety, or safeguarding into a byword for intrusive bureaucracy.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hampton Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hampton]

333ZA: After Clause 31, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of safeguarding protections in private tuition settings(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a review of—(a) the adequacy of safeguards in place to protect children who receive private tuition, either online or in-person, (b) the extent to which providers of private tuition carry out background checks on their tutors, and(c) the impact, if any, of the activities defined as “Regulated activity relating to children” in Schedule 4 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 on safe- guarding in private tuition settings.(2) Within six months of the completion of the review, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report on the findings of the review and any recommendations to improve safeguarding protections in private tuition.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require the Government to assess the adequacy of safeguarding protections for children with private tutors, who may not have to undergo an enhanced DBS check under current requirements.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to the rather dramatically numbered Amendment 333ZA in my name and belatedly declare an interest as a state secondary school teacher. In the past I also worked as a private cricket coach, which is quite relevant here. I acknowledge the help of Edapt in this amendment and in bringing this issue to my attention.

I was astonished to discover that under current UK legislation, individuals barred from working with children can still legally operate as private tutors if hired directly by a parent. This is due to the private arrangement exemption in Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. As a result, there is no legal requirement for such tutors to undergo an enhanced DBS check, nor a legal mechanism to prevent someone on the barred list offering or delivering tuition to children. This is also true of those who have been struck off by the Teaching Regulation Agency. This loophole presents a significant and increasingly relevant safeguarding risk, especially in the context of rising private tuition, including via online platforms.

The private arrangement exemption applies even where tuition is paid, unsupervised or delivered online. Research published by the Sutton Trust suggested that 30% of 11 to 16 year-olds in the UK had received private tuition at some point. That includes both my children; it never occurred to me to ask for a DBS. The BBC recently reported that 90 private tutors in the UK have been convicted of sexual offences involving children over the past 20 years.

While many tutoring platforms and companies require DBS checks, the current legal framework leaves a large part of the educational landscape unregulated, particularly for self-employed tutors working independently. This is not commonly known. Speaking in September last year, Children’s Commissioner Dame Rachel de Souza said:

“Anybody who is working one-on-one with a child as a tutor, should have a DBS criminal record check. It’s an absolute basic minimum”.


Her predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, who sadly is not in her place, said in 2021:

“The Government should look at this loophole and see how it can be closed”.


This is also supported by organisations including the Safeguarding Alliance and the Tutors’ Association.

This amendment would put private tutors on the same legal footing as freelance sports coaches and mainstream teachers, close a bizarre safety loophole and contribute to making children’s lives safer. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

We genuinely take this as a very important issue. We welcome the debate, and I hope that, when we see the results of the call for evidence, we will be able to move forward collectively. Therefore, for the reasons I have outlined, I kindly ask the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for those slightly more reassuring words, but the fact that it was news to all of us just shows how much work still has to be done. We will wait and see on this one, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 333ZA withdrawn.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hampton Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 10th September 2025 Lords Chamber

I want to make one final point. An audit of trusts with 15 or more schools done by Schools Week in 2023 revealed that women occupied just under 32% of CEO roles in a profession which is 78% female. The STRB could also be given a mandate to look at diversity in senior leadership in teaching to ensure that the top roles do not continue to be, as they currently are too often, jobs for the boys. I beg to move.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of Amendment 448A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to which I have added my name. I must declare an interest in that I have been a member of teaching unions, but somewhere along the line, I let that slip. I confess that as this Bill goes through, I am learning a lot about education. I did not realise that as a non-union member, I was not naturally entitled to legal representation if a complaint was made against me. That does not sound entirely legal to me. I believe that unions do a good job and are a necessary part of teaching for many people, but being part of a union should not determine whether a teacher feels safe and supported.

Amendment 448A promises important improvements to working conditions within the teaching profession. Referrals to the Teaching Regulation Agency have more than doubled over the past three years. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, is about to point out, one in four teachers is subject to an allegation from a student or parent at some point in their career, and, as a result, many are subject to disciplinary investigations and hearings. This puts pressure on teachers in what is already a highly pressurised job. The process of investigation can severely impact a teacher’s mental health or their ability to fulfil their job. This issue demands careful attention to prevent a worsening of the recruitment and retention crisis. Teachers need to be able to raise their own concerns, grievances or requests for flexible working arrangements. Many schools already allow trained companions, but that is exactly the problem: it depends on the good will of individual heads. Without legal clarity, the practice is inconsistent. Exercising equal working rights should not be dependent on union membership.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, would like to speak in support of Amendment 448A, which I believe represents a significant step forward in promoting fairness within the teaching profession. Just as there are many reasons why an individual may choose not to join a political party, there are likewise numerous legitimate reasons why a teacher may opt not to join a union. Although I fully support the right of teachers to join trade unions, it is deeply concerning that many feel they must do so merely to secure access to appropriate representation when facing formal proceedings. No individual should feel compelled to join a union solely for the legal protection it affords, yet evidence from representative surveys indicates that many teachers do precisely that, joining primarily for legal support in the face of allegations.

At its core, this amendment is about one fundamental principle: teachers’ access to support in formal disciplinary or grievance proceedings should not be contingent on their politic beliefs or union membership status. At this juncture, I should declare an interest, in that my wife, who is the chair of a board of governors for a foundation school, is currently in the process of a disciplinary procedure.

The issue before us is the basic right to be accompanied. At present, this right is extended only to union members or those who can identify a suitable colleague. But what of the many teachers—an increasing number—who, for entirely valid reasons, can access neither? These are not theoretical concerns. There are teachers who prefer independent forms of support; teachers who are uncomfortable sharing sensitive or personal information with colleagues; and teachers who, as is their right, choose not to participate in collective structures. Tens of thousands of such professionals exist in our education system. They are not exempt from the formal process, yet they are expected to face them alone. This is a question of fairness.

We already recognise this principle in other sectors. Under the NHS’s maintaining high professional standards framework, doctors and dentists are entitled to be accompanied by representatives from defence organisations such as the MDU or the MPS. This has not undermined the role of unions in healthcare; rather, it has ensured that highly scrutinised professionals are not left unsupported at crucial moments. It is only right that teachers, who work to and conduct similar levels of public and institutional scrutiny, should be afforded the same basic protection.

We debated a similar issue during the passage of the Employment Rights Bill, and I anticipate that the same concern may be raised again today—namely, that widening accompaniment rights risk “lawyering up” disciplinary procedures. With respect, that is a mischaracterisation of both the amendment and the current legal framework. The law already imposes clear limitations on the role of a companion in such hearings, and this amendment would not alter those parameters. It would not introduce legal representation into the room.

Indeed, it is worth noting that, under the current law, a teacher who is a union member may be accompanied by a lawyer, provided that individual holds union officer status, without the need for employer approval. Yet a teacher outside a union has no statutory right even to a trained non-legal companion. That is the imbalance this amendment seeks to address.

As unions themselves often emphasise, far from escalating matters, the presence of a trained companion often helps to prevent conflict, reduce procedural errors and resolve issues before they spiral. This is about fairness, not formality; it is also about extending protection, not creating confrontation. It is not about undermining unions; it is about extending a basic protection to all teachers regardless of their affiliations.

This is a modest and reasonable proposal that would not diminish the role of unions. Rather, it acknowledges that freedom of association includes freedom not to associate. No teacher should be disadvantaged for choosing an alternative form of professional support. If we believe in individual liberty and procedural fairness, we should not turn a blind eye to a group of professionals facing complex, often career-defining moments, unsupported.

This amendment would impose no additional financial burden on schools. On the contrary, it is likely to result in savings in both time and resources that would otherwise be spent on facilitating teachers to bring colleagues to hearings.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hampton Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Although there is some brilliant alternative provision, typically it does not offer a full school day. These are just the pupils who are clearly most at risk of abuse and exploitation. Our amendment seeks to give the local authority a duty to support these pupils. I beg to move.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran: head teachers need and deserve reassurance that they will be backed to exclude or suspend where necessary. I would like to pass on the experience of a head teacher who told me recently that he had had to permanently exclude two pupils who had set the school on fire; they were successfully moved back to a PRU.

I am now in the rather bizarre situation of speaking against an amendment to which I put my name: Amendment 459. As a teacher, I thought that this amendment was eminently sensible, given that the police would still be able to decide whether or not to act. But I found out that it is more complex than that. Rebecca Warren, the executive principal of the Mossbourne trust, says:

“I agree that on the face of it this appears eminently sensible as one would think it is vital to ensure that all services are alerted to ensure that the perpetrator … and victim are offered necessary support. Given that the police service is one of the three arms of Safeguarding Boards (along with the council and healthcare) then police should be alerted and equally responsible for the welfare and safeguarding of children. An act of violence against an adult in a school environment is, in itself, a safeguarding concern.


However, I am dismayed that once again no duty is placed on the police to respond or act. So, in the absence of a collegiate approach, I worry this will become just another duty for teaching professionals with no duty placed on fellow services. I must emphasise that this should not become yet another safeguarding duty placed on the shoulders of schools, with schools being potentially penalised if an act is not reported. Reporting to the police is very likely to erode the trust between child/home and school. This is only worth risking if there is a definite response and support from the police for the child and family.


My question is why the professional judgement of educators is deemed to be less worthy than the professional judgement of the police ie: educators have a statutory duty to report (and must always support) but Social Care and the Police have no statutory duty to support when a report is made”.


Peter Hughes, the chief exec of the Mossbourne trust, makes this plea:

“This Bill is in danger of treating schools as if they are full of idiots without the ability to make sensible decisions. Schools, as the second class citizens in the safeguarding arena, spend more time with children than the other three safeguarding partners combined. We are the only service that is in loco parentis 190 days a year from the age of 4-18. Like any good parent, we need to make judgments about what is in the best interests of our children balanced against society and the other members of our family (students and staff). I would ask that we are afforded that right”.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 501 by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and will speak to Amendment 464 in my name and those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for all of whose support I am most grateful. The amendment implements and supplements an excellent recommendation of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. It is difficult to understand why it has been left on the table when racism has been acknowledged as a problem in schools for so long.

Gypsy, Traveller and Roma parents have reported racist incidents as a reason for opting for home education for as long as I have been concerned about these communities. One of the problems in their case is that, because the children are usually white, they are often not recognised as members of a legally defined minority ethnic group. But they are ill-treated, ostracised and bullied for that membership just the same. Now, we also have seen religious prejudice, incidents and taunts demoralising children and undermining their motivation. This totally belies the right to freedom of religion and belief. It really is time to put this right and record and report such incidents. They should have no place in the conduct of the school day. Unless the data is captured, the position will not be understood and improved. This is an amendment, surely, whose time has definitely come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

I apologise to the Committee. Clearly, I and possibly the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, had misunderstood the rules relating to this.

As has been noted, national organisations backing the Make It Mandatory campaign, in addition to the Children’s Commissioner, all agree that the extension of relationships and sex education to this group would be important.

In conclusion, in a recent Commons debate on relationships education in schools, the Minister for School Standards emphasised the vital role that education plays in preventing violence and that the aim of relationships education is to support all young people to build positive relationships and to keep themselves safe. That education must equip them for adult life. It thus makes no sense that, just as they are at the cusp of adult life, they should not be assured access to relationships and sex education to help equip them. The Minister continued that, as part of the Government’s opportunity mission,

“we will equip our young people and children with the skills they need to form strong, positive relationships”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/4/25; col. 112WH.]

Although she was talking about the school context, this is clearly important in terms of an extension to post-16.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 463, to which I added my name. Government data shows that 16 to 19 year-olds experience the highest rates of domestic abuse of any age group. Without mandatory RSE, we are leaving many 16 to 18 year-olds unsupported, just as they are starting their first intimate relationships. Tender, a marvellous charity that goes into schools to educate children in relationships, has been working with this age group. It found that only around half of the students could identify signs of an abusive relationship or knew where to find support; by contrast, after participating in Tender’s workshops, over 90% can identify abuse and will know where to find help.

Victim-blaming and perpetrator-excusing attitudes are prevalent in this cohort, in part due to a high percentage of young people viewing harmful content online. The End Violence Against Women coalition agrees, quoting the National Association for Managers of Student Services in saying that, “As the front line of support services in post-16 education, we know it’s been never more important to give young people a safe place with structure, to discuss and learn about positive relationships and to address the social isolation and misinformation a world living on social media has created”. In a confusing world, 16 to 18 year-olds seeking guidance deserve to be supported to critically examine and challenge harmful attitudes among their peers in a safe, supportive environment, which we can create through mandatory RSE lessons.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hampton Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th September 2025 Lords Chamber

I wonder whether the proposers have been reading the news over the past few weeks. We do not have to look far to see where the kinds of wishful thinking reflected in these amendments are making this country all but ungovernable, as many serious commentators are observing, and contributing to widespread anger and social unrest. We really should not be looking to put another log on that fire. We should recognise that the public at large want government by elected representatives, not human rights lawyers. It is increasingly obvious to the public that well-intentioned supranational conventions can themselves over time become politicised, reinterpreted and even weaponised. So, sadly, I believe that these amendments can be interpreted as reflecting what has to be described as an elitist desire to thwart democracy pre-emptively where it does not fit with that elite’s worldview. In my view, this Chamber should always want to protect democracy, not undermine it.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I am standing up to make a speech absolutely on the fly now. I have taken some legal advice and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, says there would be no adverse impact from this. So I add my support to Amendments 469, 470 and 502F. As a teacher, I think the history of education in this country is that it has gradually dawned on us that children have rights. If I may give a bit of hope to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I think we do listen to children much more now.

The noble Lord, Lord Banner, touched on the idea that we are very good at setting up conventions—we are extremely diligent signatories and very good penholders—but we are not usually very good at following our own advice. The Children’s Charity Coalition has said that the Bill currently lacks explicit measures to ensure that children’s rights are systematically considered in law and policy-making. That is a lot of children’s charities that think that. We have heard from Team Cross Bench, which I thought put some extraordinary power behind these amendments, but perhaps I may quote my legal adviser, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on this one: these are appropriate and overdue.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. I have not particularly participated in this Bill, but I am always interested when noble Lords seek to incorporate various treaties we have signed into domestic law. The reason I say that is because of my experience in a variety of ways of having been a Minister. Paragraph 1.6 of the Ministerial Code, which is not a new obligation on Ministers, states that Ministers have to comply with the international agreements into which Governments and previous Governments have entered and which have usually been ratified by Parliament. The need to think about these sorts of issues, particularly around children, is already embedded into how policy framework strategies are deployed.

“From the mouths of children”


is in the Psalms and in the Gospels. That element of truth comes through: it is absolutely vital that children’s voices are heard. This is why things such as the Children Act 1989 was really important, about aspects of that.

However, I am really concerned, and I share the concerns that my noble friend Lady Spielman expressed, about whether these need to be incorporated as a whole into domestic law. Only a handful of other countries have done this: Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Spain and, to some extent, or to the full extent of its devolved powers, the Scottish Parliament has decided to do the same—although noble Lords may be aware of the rulings after there was a referral to the Supreme Court which removed certain aspects of that legislation, partly because it counteracted the primacy of this Parliament in legislation and other matters.

However, as regards thinking through, I fully respect the long connection with education of the noble Baroness, Lady Blower. Both my parents are teachers. I do not have children, so I do not have the same experiences there, but I am aware, from when I was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, of absolutely how much, just from the DNA, in effect, of being normal human beings, we would consider aspects of impacts on children.

The noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, said the difficulty about the conversations is that they get legalistic. Well, that is the whole point. We are talking about the law. If I think of Amendment 502G, perhaps there would have been a different ruling with the Michaela academy recently on whether somebody could pray at school or not. I think also of keeping schools open. I know there is an element of it being discussed in Amendment 502M. I encourage the people who have been distinguished general secretaries of unions to think of parents perhaps starting to sue schools for not staying open when there is some snow. The snow may not be stopping the children getting to school, but it might be stopping a couple of the teachers, so the decision is then to close down education for a whole day or more, not on behalf of the children but because they cannot get some teachers there. I referred to “legalistic” because that is where you start getting into disputes, going to court, trying to settle outside—all these other issues.

That is why I completely understand why ratifying that treaty was so important. That becomes guidance, a framework and an actual way of doing things, but it does not then become necessarily—I believe we have incorporated certain parts of the convention into domestic law—a straitjacket in effect on how we kind of evolve in terms of policy. There are risks, and I know that there has been another Supreme Court ruling trying to discourage judges and indeed people from bringing judicial reviews trying to change policy. But that is exactly where we get into issues that we can see in other legal cases that are often in the courts.

Obviously, I respect the distinguished legal experience of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, but I would have thought that the public sector equality duty, which recognises religion and belief, would already capture perhaps some of what he is trying to incorporate in his amendment.

I do not want to delay the Committee too much longer, but I think this is a case of “Be careful what you wish for”. What has happened for children that now makes it necessary to do this? The children were ignored when they were being groomed and when they went to the police. Children have been ignored in other situations. That grooming is still ongoing; I hope the police and the CPS are more alert as well. But going back to the substance, I hope that the way that the UNCRC has been effectively incorporated into how we go about our affairs as Ministers, as Parliament and as public servants should be sufficient. However, I will continue to try to understand the deficiency that we are trying to address by this wholesale incorporation of this into our domestic law when I genuinely do not believe it is needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, the issue of apprenticeships is really relevant to improving the life opportunities of young people. I respect what the noble Lord, Lord Layard, has done in tabling this amendment, which is supported by many distinguished people. Noble Lords should recognise that the introduction of T-levels was intended to provide education in a more controlled atmosphere, as opposed to young people —children—going out to work, legally of course.

T-levels—which, by the way, required a ministerial direction issued by my right honourable friend Damian Hinds because they were against the advice of civil servants—are a good way of trying to make sure that young people get that opportunity without necessarily having to be forced into the world of work. I may be overinterpreting the noble Lord’s amendment.

The other issue employers face is the balance between how you treat children in your workforce and how you treat adults. In my experience at the Department for Work and Pensions, that was a key difficulty in considering how to encourage young people into work. I note that the amendment is very specific, referring to the ages of between 16 and 18.

On my noble friend Lord Lucas’s amendment, which would promote provision of places up to level 7, thought is being given to how young people can then qualify as solicitors and the like by embarking on this path. However, I somewhat agree with the noble Lord, Lord Storey: schemes were developed that effectively skewed away from the entry roles that we still need young people to get into. Regrettably, due to the Employment Rights Bill, we are seeing fewer and fewer such opportunities for young people. It is a real worry that, despite the Government’s best intentions, we will see NEETs going up rather than down.

I support the sentiment of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Layard. I fear it will be difficult fully to put into practice exactly what he wants, but I encourage the Government to continue to do whatever they can to make it as straightforward as possible for young people to get apprenticeships and, more importantly, for employers to take young people on as apprentices.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak as a design technology teacher, a veteran of the IfATE Act, an officer of the APPG on apprenticeships and a member of the House of Lords Social Mobility Policy Committee.

I think we all agree that apprenticeships are vital to this country. It is rather sad that this subject seems to have led to a general exit from the Chamber, but I think that is more because it is lunchtime. I welcome the defence industrial strategy and its new apprenticeship and graduate clearing system, which I know BAE Systems was heavily behind. We have seen Skills England start, and we hope upon hope that it is the answer. This is an incredibly important and nuanced subject, and I am afraid I do not think these amendments are the answer.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I shall try to make a few remarks in summing up. Apprenticeships really feel like they should be an answer but are proving to be extremely difficult to get into operation. Employers, especially SMEs, find it difficult to give the work, but they are where you would expect to find most of those apprenticeships, especially at the introductory level. Most people have said, “Yes, it’s a problem”. T-levels have been brought in but, if I remember correctly, you have to work with an employer while doing them, and that has proved difficult in the past.

The reason why they are proving so difficult is that it is a bit of a mess. We have boards and so on for careers guidance, and things locally and nationally. We clearly need more emphasis on making sure that people know where these opportunities are, how they will be supported and how they will get through. There is a general duty proposed in the Bill, but something inside me says that, as written, it is an invitation to Henry VIII powers—possibly Henry IX and X as well. The fact remains that we have not got this right. There have been some valiant efforts, but we have not managed to bring the people who want and would benefit from an apprenticeship to those who will give one to them. That is the problem.

I hope that, when the Minister responds, we will get a better idea of how this will work. The levy has, shall we say, had its problems—that would be a generous way of putting it. The Minister has an opportunity to tell us how the Government are going to develop this. It should be remembered that many of the people in the client base have not been that successful academically —I think just about everybody would agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Deben—and the fact is that schools are judged by GCSEs and A-levels. That is the path forward and everything else is a secondary option. That seems to be the culture; Governments have tried to change it, but I do not think they have succeeded. What are the Government going to do to get these more practical-based operations in?

It would be remiss of me if I did not say that we need to look at the English and maths qualifications. I refer to this again as somebody with dyscalculia and 14 fails in functional skills in an apprenticeship. We did some work on this. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, is not here because we managed to get some consideration on English when the original Bill was brought forward; both he and I bear the scars of that process. I thank him for taking on his own Civil Service and Government to get it. Any Minister who is prepared to show that degree of courage will always get my support.

I hope we can get an idea of how we are going to address the problems, which have certainly been accepted, associated with getting people into apprenticeships. On the question of the things that should be attractive to those who have not been great successes in conventional education, or according to normal cultural expectations, what are we going to do? We need to act, not only for the nation’s general economy, but for the people who are the clients.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

I am sorry, but I have to interject here to say that the narrowing of the curriculum and the teacher supply crisis was a direct result of austerity, teacher pay falling by 12% in real terms and chronic underfunding of schools, all of which were initiated during the coalition and continued until 2024.

Children absolutely deserve a rich and balanced curriculum, but that becomes much more difficult if they are not being taught by teachers qualified in the subject area but by unqualified teachers. The teacher supply crisis started and became acute during the previous Government. When we have this debate, we cannot ignore the practical consequences of chronic underfunding, chronic undermining of the profession and, from the start of the coalition, a policy of attacking teachers and leaders as being responsible for falling school standards.

There was also a deliberate narrowing of the curriculum through the EBacc to a range of academic subjects, which has meant a precipitous decline in arts and drama and a shorting of the experience that children get in physical education.

I am sorry, but I must put all that on the record. My friend the noble Lord is rightly asking these questions but he is coming up with a different set of conclusions.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, before the noble Lord continues, I do not recognise, luckily, the dystopian view that he has given. The primary school that both my children were at and the school where I now teach are full for before-school, lunchtime and after-school activities. I put on record in this Chamber that my daughter’s girls team won the under-15 Hackney cup.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I am grateful for those comments, believe it or not. I could well have made the noble Lord’s speech, to be honest, and I might have gone on to say some of those things. In some of my other contributions in this House, I have, for example, decried the Government’s stance on the EBacc, which has created problems for the creative industries, as well as for sport and physical education. The noble Lord, Lord Gove, who is not in his place, spoke yesterday, and I referred to the cataclysmic changes that his time as Secretary of State brought about. I was slightly annoyed that he referred to a reasonable request for a national guarantee on tutoring as a sort of publicity stunt by the Lib Dems. That was my reaction to that, as those noble Lords who were present know. I accept everything the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, said.

Politicians—not in this Chamber, of course—sometimes forget what happened beforehand. The country was on its knees because of the recession—it really was; you could see that—and the Government had to step forward and take some difficult decisions. But those difficult decisions did not have to see the dismantling of services that both the noble Lord and I think are really important. As the head teacher of a primary school for 23 years, I recognise what the noble Lords is saying, but it is not in every school.

However, we were talking about PE, so let me move on to one example of PE which I know a great deal about: swimming. I declare an interest as a patron of the Royal Life Saving Society. Swimming is important to us as a nation—we are an island. I do not have the figures to hand, other than the sad figure that somewhere in the region of 250 people drown every year and some 40 of them are children between primary age and 17, and those figures are rising. Why are drownings happening? It is because fewer and fewer schools have the resources to swim. How many schools have a swimming pool they can go to? I remember in those halcyon days in my borough, primary schools would have a small learner pool that you could walk to in every area. We could take even top infants to the learner pool to learn how to swim. Every child had a term and a half of swimming and 98% of children left school being able to swim 20 meters. That does not happen now, for the very reasons that we have heard.

I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I thought his speech was absolutely spot on. If we are serious about the importance of sport, everything he said I could not agree with.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hampton Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 14th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, while welcoming the Government’s amendment to ensure that the child’s voice is heard in family group decision-making, I add my support to the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran.

As we discussed in Committee, family group decision-making is a broad, generic term—without clear principles and standards—about what families can expect. Indeed, the Explanatory Notes for the Bill themselves state that

“FGDM is an umbrella term”.

As a result, concern remains, unsupported by evidence, among charities and organisations supporting vulnerable families that FGDM approaches may proliferate at a local level as a result of the lack of specificity in the Bill. As my noble friend highlighted, that is despite clear evidence, both in the UK and internationally, that family group conferences in particular are a successful and effective model for diverting children from care and supporting them to remain in their family. If the Minister is unable to accept Amendment 2, I hope that in her response she will be able to provide strong reassurance that, in the regulations and statutory guidance, it will be made clear that local authorities will be expected to follow the principles and standards drawn from the robust national and international research findings on the efficacy of the group conference approach.

I turn to Amendment 3. As was highlighted during our discussions in Committee, reunification is the most common way for children to leave care but, sadly, too many reunifications break down due to lack of support. There is currently no strategy by which to support reunifying families, and 78% of local authorities admit that what they provide is inadequate. In winding up our previous debate on this issue, the Minister said that she had some sympathy with the objective of including this measure in the Bill, not least because of the challenges of reunification, and the need to ensure that it is supported. I hope, then, that even at this late stage, the Minister might look favourably on accepting this amendment, as it could make a real difference to the stability of a child’s return home.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and particularly Amendment 5, to which I added my name. I declare my interests as a teacher in a state school in Hackney and someone who has also been a kinship carer.

I can speak from personal experience that kinship caring is usually undertaken at a time of high stress. It is vital that everybody is clear about the expectations of the arrangement, and what support is available when it is needed, as it most probably will be. According to the Family Rights Group, a clear set of principles is needed to ensure that there is careful preparation, and that the meetings are independently co-ordinated and genuinely family-led, and that the voice of the children is heard.

The charity Kinship adds that when the independent review of children’s social care recommended the introduction of a new legal duty to offer FGDM, crucially, this was accompanied by complementary recommendations to deliver much-needed support to kinship families and all family networks afterwards. These very simple amendments have the potential to make the lives of future kinship carers considerably less stressful, and we must be very clear that we desperately need kinship carers.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 23 looks again at the Government’s approach to introducing the single unique identifier and would require the specification of the NHS number. The Minister will know that the pilot of the single unique identifier in Wigan has revealed how complicated it is to implement this approach and, therefore, how slow it is. We continue to believe that it is not realistic to think that the Government will introduce another identifier or number that would be workable, as set out in government Amendment 22. I would be grateful if the Minister, when she comes to sum up, could give an estimate for the timescale and relative cost of the two approaches: of using an NHS number, or a new single unique identifier. I beg to move.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, will speak briefly, having added my name to Amendment 19 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. As teachers, we had it drummed into us that information is key—it is the new gold—but, as the noble Baroness said, that is no good without action. We need to have a frictionless system where information flows both ways but there is a responsibility to act on it. This is a very sensible amendment.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, in 1987, I chaired an inquiry called the Cleveland child abuse inquiry. One of the aspects of it was the deliberate refusal in those days to provide information about 120-odd children. This had disastrous consequences, because they were removed from home and many had to be sent back, whether or not they had, in fact, been abused.

During my years as a family judge, again and again the cases that came before me did so because, at the level of dealing with children’s safeguarding, there was a lack of communication and, consequently, a lack of action. What is unbelievably sad is that, since I retired many years ago, this has continued. We have had endless reports of the death of a child, and one of the reasons for that is that people had information that was not passed to somebody else and, consequently, there was no action. Therefore, I very much support Amendment 19.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 28 in the name of my noble friend Lady Tyler, which I hope the Government will support. I should like to speak on Amendment 97 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on the legal defence of reasonable punishment. I declare an interest as vice-president of Barnardo’s, which has been campaigning for the end of the reasonable punishment defence, along with its partners in the children’s sector.

We already know that physical punishment can cause significant harm to a child, including poorer mental health and increased behavioural problems, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has said. Any child who is physically punished is also at greater risk of even more serious abuse, which can be devastating.

Professionals who work with children can find it difficult to assess and respond to potential risks, since distinguishing between physical punishment and abuse is challenging. As a result, Wales and Scotland have acted to remove the reasonable punishment defence from the law, but England has not done so. Children in this nation remain uniquely vulnerable, with less protection from assault than adults and other children elsewhere in the UK.

I turn my attention to the Welsh review, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Some 95% of parents in Wales now know that physical punishment is illegal and 86% believe it is ineffective. We feared widespread criminalisation of parents, but that has not occurred. Fewer than five cases have been referred to the CPS, with no convictions to note. Instead, families have been diverted to supportive parenting programmes, which have led to positive outcomes for many of them, including in children’s behaviour and parental well-being. Professionals have also reported greater clarity and confidence when dealing with such cases. That shows that the law is working but, most importantly, that children are being protected.

There is widespread support for change. Polling from the NSPCC has shown that the majority of safe- guarding professionals, including teachers, healthcare professionals and the police, would like to see the end of physical punishment of children. More than 300 public figures also supported a change in the law. The Government wished to wait until evidence from Wales on the law change was available, but that evidence is now available.

The amendment before us does not seek to legislate the defence away at once. We ask only that the Government meaningfully consider the evidence from Wales and consider abolishing the so-called reasonable punishment defence in England through future legislation, within six months of this Bill becoming law.

When the proof of harm is so extensive and the evidence of change is so promising, I strongly feel that asking for a transparent response to that evidence is a reasonable and proportionate request. Children should not have to wait indefinitely for clarity on what their rights are, or for protection and fairness when evidence that could potentially change their lives already exists. I ask other noble Lords across the House to stand with children and give their support to this amendment, and, more importantly, for the Government to accept the amendment, as that would show that they too put children at the heart of the matter when it comes to equal protection for children. As I always say, childhood lasts a lifetime, so let us do it.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I too have added my name to Amendment 97. As we have heard, the law changes in Wales on reasonable punishment are going well. Children in England have less protection in law from assaults than adults and their peers in Scotland and Wales. The law as it stands is unclear and open to interpretation, making it harder to safeguard children.

As a teacher, I know first-hand the challenges that this poses for professionals safeguarding children. When the law contains ambiguity, safeguarding becomes more difficult. I have come across cases where children have reported that if they do not get good grades then they will be beaten. That is a safeguarding risk that I would report, but for safeguarding leads it is a nightmare that they have to judge the extent of any injuries. The fact that you can still legally hit a child with calculation is bizarre and barbaric. That is reflected in the NSPCC’s YouGov polling from August that 90% of social workers, 77% of healthcare professionals and 75% of teachers all believe that the law in England should be changed—and they are voters—while some 81% of parents with a child under 18 think that physical punishment of any sort is unacceptable.

Like many others, I want to see the reasonable punishment defence removed entirely to give all children protection from assault. I support the amendment as a clear and pragmatic compromise to bring in, in a timely way, the evidence that the Government want to see on the impact of implementing this change on parents, professionals and public services. The Government’s openness to reviewing the evidence and hearing from a range of people on this issue is welcome. I therefore hope they will support this amendment in that spirit.

Given the challenges that the current law poses for professionals, it is welcome to see the positive impact that removing the defence has had in Wales. Professionals across safeguarding, education and healthcare report that the law has clarified and strengthened their ability to protect children’s rights and have better conversations with parents. That reinforces the call from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health that removing the defence would support professionals in safeguarding children and providing clearer advice to families. The report has also shown that the concerns around criminalising parents have not materialised. In fact, it has meant that families have been able to access support.

With zero convictions and fewer than five cases referred to the CPS but hundreds of families accessing parenting support, the report concludes that the aim of the Act—not to criminalise parents but to help to educate and support them in managing behaviours differently—is being realised. I quote that in Wales

“the law is working and making significant progress in protecting children’s rights”.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, I support Amendment 97. The abolition of the physical punishment of children is something that many of us on these Benches have long endorsed. My right reverend friends the Bishop of Manchester and the Bishop of Derby in particular wanted to reiterate that support alongside mine.

The amendment is eminently sensible, as we have just heard. I was pleased to read in the report from Wales that the introduction of the role of the out-of-court parenting support worker has significantly facilitated the implementation of this Act, as we have heard. My concern when we talk about legislation with penalties is always the unintended consequences, in this case for parents and wider families—we do not need any more children being impacted by parental imprisonment—but it is music to my ears that these parenting support workers in Wales have been instrumental in engaging with families, offering guidance on positive parenting strategies and providing early preventive support to resolve those issues, as we have heard, before they escalate to criminal proceedings. In short, I always support evidence-based policy-making, and this seems like a sensible step in the right direction on this issue. I support Amendment 97.

--- Later in debate ---

I therefore encourage the Government to review what has happened in Wales, but maybe with a different set of research and evidence than we have heard today. A recent literature review of 37 peer-reviewed studies noted the tendency to conflate correlation with causation. It also noted unrepresentative samples. There is a problem in Wales, by the way, with incomplete data-gathering, as different localities often collect data in different ways. Some of it seems ideological to me, rather than scientific assertions being normalised. I suggest that the UK Government should look at Wales, but not emulate it. For those of us who are concerned about this overreach by the state into the autonomy of parents who love their children and so on, conflating this with abuse is a really unworthy way of conducting a serious discussion. We all want children to be safe. Some people think that a tap on the leg is the same as abuse; it is not.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, if I may speak again, I believe I was just accused by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, of insulting parents, which I have never been accused of before. I would like to explain myself slightly. The law, as far as I understand it, is that the bruise must be not visible within three days. On dark skin, you can get quite a lot of force into a mild slap to leave a bruise that cannot be seen in three days. If one side is that we are practically calling parents punch-drunk, mad people and the other is, “It’s a light tap, because a child has done something wrong”, there is a huge area between them. To call me insulting to parents is what I find insulting myself.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I do not think that that was an intervention on my speech, but there is a huge difference between a small tap and beating a child; that is the point. A small tap should not be illegal; beating a child is illegal.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hampton Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 14th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, on these Benches, we welcome government Amendment 29.

As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said about his Amendment 44, there is a gap where the Government have extended the role of virtual school heads but not extended pupil premium plus to children in kinship care. As a minimum movement on this, I wonder whether the Government would consider extending it to kinship children brought within the ambit of the virtual school head, so that children in care have consistent entitlements—that is currently not the case. I assume that the noble Lord will not press Amendment 45 in his name, so I will not speak to that.

I signed the noble Lord’s Amendment 48, on kinship care leave. As the Minister knows, employers are starting to move in this direction. I would be grateful if she could set out what the Government’s plans are here. If any of us were to care for a child of a member of our extended family, expecting comparable leave to be able to settle that child in, just as if one was adopting or fostering, seems only reasonable. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendment 48. As an ex-kinship carer, I know that there are times when it is incredibly stressful, such as when you are dealing with bereavements and all sorts of issues. You will be dealing children who have gone through this and might well have issues, all the way through to learning difficulties. It is incredibly difficult. If we want kinship carers, we need this kind of leave.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hampton Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 19th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to speak in support of Amendment 62 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler.

The case for this is, really, fairly straightforward. Children in care often have quite strong mental health needs and are not in the best of mental health. Care leavers comprise about 1% to 3% of the general youth population, but that translates into them being responsible for one quarter of the homeless population. That group are twice as likely to die prematurely than the general population, and in many cases suicide is the largest reason for that high death rate. That is a fairly strong causal link between children in the care system, or those going into the care system, having fragile mental health, and that not being picked up as early as it should be. This amendment simply asks that we please ensure that, when children have an assessment of the quality of their mental health, the practitioners who are doing that are qualified in mental health. Only in that way can we be sure that we catch those vulnerable young people at that early stage and that they do not become one of the depressing statistics that I have just mentioned.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 62, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and to which I have added my name. I declare, as ever, that I am a teacher and I thank the National Children’s Bureau for its help on this.

Children do not come into care because they have won the lottery of life; trauma is unlikely to be far from their lives. Yet our assessment processes still rely on professionals who may have little or no training in mental health or trauma-informed practice. Care-experienced young people told the Education Select Committee, as part of its inquiry into children’s social care, that local authorities are not always fulfilling their obligations to include emotional and mental health in their health assessments of children in care. One young person told the committee:

“I feel a lot could be explained if they understood the experience of trauma. It will take time. It will not go away at night, and sometimes before it gets better it could get worse. No one talks about that. You will not be okay if you are going into care; there is a reason why you are there, and so it is important that the minute you go into care every child should have a mandatory assessment, physical and mental, and there should be that on-call support for them”.


Bringing qualified mental health practitioners into the mandatory health assessment of children in care is simple, practical and overdue. I hope that the Government will use this amendment as an opportunity to do more for children in care and to make their lives and, as importantly, their futures better.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I feel a strong need to speak on Amendment 61, this wonderful amendment, on

“Amending the sufficiency duty to prevent children being moved far away from home”.


Especially where a child has been put under a deprivation of liberty order, if you then move them a long way away, it means that parents or even foster carers have quite a difficulty in keeping in touch with the child. So the sufficiency duty on local authorities should be amended from requiring them to take

“steps that secure, so far as reasonably practicable”

to requiring them to take

“all reasonable steps to secure”,

which is a far better phrase that gives some assurance.

As somebody who fostered children and was in touch with other foster carers, I know that children were put a long way away when, under the expression of the Children Act 1989, steps had been taken that were “reasonably practicable”. But, actually, you could scratch under the surface and see the pressure in an area such as Tulse Hill near Brixton, where I was a vicar and where a lot of children were placed in care. The council had a big job to do, and your Lordships and I know that it was extremely busy. It is easy to say, “Yes, I’ve taken reasonable steps and done what is practicable”, whereas “all reasonable steps” should be taken, and you need to catalogue them in case somebody asks questions.

I suggest to the Committee that Amendment 61 would remove a lot of anxiety from parents whose children find themselves deprived of their liberty. Moving them a long way away is almost suggesting that parents will, or maybe will not, find a way of going to where these children have been placed. In the place where I ministered for 13 years, they were always living in a time of financial crisis. Buses were needed, taking a long time, to get to where these children had been put, which was such a huge burden.

I hope the Minister will see that this amendment would actually help our children. They are not someone else’s children; they are our children. As that wonderful African proverb says, it takes a whole village to raise and educate a child. They are ours; would we be happy if they were placed such a long way from home? That would be quite a burden, and I congratulate the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, this is a very important and sensitive area of law, and valid issues and concerns are raised in the amendments spoken to so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I also pay tribute, as she did, to the work of the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory in this area. I know the Government have been working hard to see what can be done and to give various assurances. I hope the Minister can provide further assurances today so that we can all be satisfied that they are taking this issue very seriously and have a clear plan to tackle it.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

I have added my name to Amendment 53. It is vital that children who are deprived of liberty can access quality education. Otherwise, we really are depriving them of hope and a future. I too quote the Children’s Commissioner:

“For the very small number of children where controls on their freedom are necessary in order to keep them or others safe, we must make sure they have not only excellent, individualised care, but also full protection under the law … we have a moral obligation to ensure that children at risk of harm are not simply contained and kept out of the community, but are seen, heard, and given the care and support they need to thrive”.


She continues later:

“Where a deprivation of liberty is authorised, the conditions should include a plan for meeting the child’s specific needs through intensive intervention and work aimed at helping them to be safe in the long-term. This plan should be co-produced by health and social care if appropriate, and could include mental health support, mood and behaviour management, work on addressing risks of exploitation, educational support, and any other specialist therapeutic intervention that is required”.


Once again, adding one word to the Bill could change many futures.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for raising important points regarding Clause 11, which, as noble Lords have identified, relates to some of the most vulnerable children in the country. I know that noble Lords rightly feel particularly strongly about this measure. I thank the noble Baroness for her engagement with my officials ahead of this debate, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield.

It is important to remember that Clause 11 will already make an important change from some of the situations identified by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, correctly and graphically identified some of the challenges with the current operation of the system, which is why this measure seeks to bring more children who would otherwise be deprived of their liberty under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court within a statutory scheme where they will benefit from enhanced safeguards and protections, which many of the amendments in this group are seeking.

Turning to these amendments, I reiterate that this measure is intended not to encourage the practice of depriving children of their liberty but to ensure that there are appropriate rights and safeguards in place to prevent children being deprived of liberty inappropriately or for longer than is absolutely necessary. We are committed to reducing the number of children in complex situations as part of reforms to rebalance the system away from crisis intervention towards earlier help and to prevent children’s needs escalating to the point where they need to be deprived of their liberty, and to ensuring that when they are, it can happen in more appropriate accommodation than has been the case up to this point.

We are grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its scrutiny and have, in government Amendment 57, accepted its recommendation that regulations developed using the powers under Section 25 of the Children Act 1989 be subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring parliamentary scrutiny and approval in both Houses.

Amendment 56 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is about joint funding arrangements between partners for children deprived of their liberty under this measure. The Government wholly agree that care for these children must be jointly funded and delivered through an integrated, whole-system approach, which should include social care, health, education and youth justice. However, we do not wish to restrict pooled funding arrangements in the way this amendment does, tying it to the existence of the Section 25 order. We think pooled funding arrangements would be beneficial to a wider cohort of looked-after children, including those whose order has recently come to an end or who are at risk of needing to be deprived of their liberty. This requires testing first to ensure that the right cohort of children and relevant partners are included.

That is why the Department for Education, with NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care, is leading a national programme to tackle underlying systemic failures and to support local areas to work together more effectively. We are building cross-system integration, starting with the peer collaborative convened by the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory—rightly praised by several noble Lords this evening—which identified key elements for transforming care for children with complex trauma, supporting professionals to stand together so that risk is better tolerated and supported.

West Sussex, part of the South East Regional Care Cooperative, is working closely with the ICB to test how a cross-system team can drive integrated support, build an understanding of need and identify gaps in the current pathways across health, social care and justice for this cohort of children. We are not waiting; we are making quick progress in a way that is most likely to be appropriate and solve the problems. Next year we will expand to pilots, where we will evaluate methods of pooled funding, developing best practices that can be adopted and adapted by other local areas. We know that pooled funding works—such as through the better care fund for adults—but legislating now would be premature. We must first test and refine the most effective approach to ensure that the eventual framework enables the right level of cross-system integration and innovation.

Amendment 55 on recovery plans, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, aims to ensure that there are plans to remove restrictions from a child. The Government agree that no child should be deprived of their liberty any longer than absolutely necessary, which is why there are already several existing duties on local authorities in this regard, including the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of any child looked after by them, and that placement decisions are informed by a care plan based on an understanding of the child’s needs and best interests.

Rather than legislate further in this space, diverting local authorities’ attention toward navigating an increasingly complex statutory framework instead of focusing on the child’s needs, we want to strengthen the way in which existing legislation is applied, re-emphasising the need for a care plan that is co-designed between all the professionals involved in a child’s care and treatment.

As part of the court application, it is the practice of local authorities to submit the child’s full care plan. The court should be provided with both the restrictions they plan to impose and the action and progress required to end restrictions as quickly as possible. The plan should be formulated with input from all those professionals involved in the child’s care and will be scrutinised by the court and used to assess progress. If the court is not satisfied about the level of detail included in the plan to allow it to monitor progress and de-escalation, the court should require further input from the relevant professionals.

Similarly, regarding Amendment 60 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, relating to the abilities of independent reviewing officers to escalate concerns on the implementation of a child’s plan to Cafcass, IROs already have the statutory power to perform this function. They are responsible for monitoring the performance of local authorities in relation to a child’s care plan and must consider escalating cases to Cafcass whenever appropriate. This includes issues related to deprivation of liberty. It is therefore not necessary to legislate to expand the legal duties of IROs.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hampton Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 28th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I also support Amendment 107, moved by our friend, the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and will follow the powerful speeches by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Bennett. The amendment is timely. It supports our children, particularly those most in need. As we heard, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s analysis on child poverty in Britain has said that 4.5 million children are living in poverty—a figure that continues to climb, even after the most recent policy changes.

These are not abstract numbers; they are the lived reality of millions of families who are denied the security and opportunity that every child deserves. The amendment goes beyond rhetoric: it would require the Government to set binding targets, with clear timescales, and to account publicly for each step taken towards meeting them. Doing so would emulate principles behind other statutory frameworks. The most obvious is the Climate Change Act, through which parliamentary accountability has driven sustained action and cross-government focus. The noble Lord, Lord Bird, talked about eight separate departments having some sort of responsibility for child poverty. That rigour should be applied to the fight against child poverty.

Peer-reviewed evidence makes it clear why this matters. International literature also shows that poverty has causal, long-term impacts on children’s health, educational attainment and future incomes. Children in low-income families are more likely to suffer poor health, lower school attainment and diminished life opportunities than their better-off peers. Moreover, robust reviews find that increased family income improves children’s educational and health outcomes, including school performance and future prospects.

I am not just reviewing the literature: I speak before noble Lords with my own lived experience as someone who was on free school meals, who got subsidised school clothing and who could not afford to go to college simply because we were poor. I had to go and work on a YTS training scheme in 1988 for £27.50 per week, working 40 hours a week unloading lorries. This is my lived experience that I bring before noble Lords today.

The evidence also reminds us that policy choices matter profoundly for children’s life chances, and systematic measurement and accountability mechanisms are essential to gauge impact. The Government’s recently published child poverty strategy, which was mentioned earlier, forecasts that the current suite of measures could lift an estimated 550,000 children out of relative poverty. We should all aim for that, but without legally enforceable targets, there is no guarantee that those outcomes will be delivered and sustained across future Administrations.

Targets give shape to ambition; they transform good intentions into measurable progress. We should also heed lessons from within the UK. Scotland was mentioned earlier. Scottish poverty targets might not be perfect, but they have a guided, sustained policy focus, which has shown that, when outcomes are measured and monitored, progress is more achievable.

This amendment is a practical tool to ensure that Ministers cannot evade responsibility for promises they have made. It is a mechanism that will help ensure that every policy aimed at education, well-being, housing and family support is tested against the yardstick of whether it moves us closer to reducing child poverty. I therefore urge noble Lords from all sides of the House to support the amendment and help ensure that the Government are held accountable to the children of our great nation.

[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.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to support the amendment in principle. I wonder whether we could get one or two simple targets to measure as indicators of potential poverty. Yesterday, a new report came out called, It’s Like Torture: Life in Temporary Accommodation for Neurodivergent Children and their Families. I believe that temporary accommodation for children is one of the biggest indicators of a lack of well-being, and it is linked to poverty. During Covid, we got almost every rough sleeper off the streets. It is time that we set a target to get every child in temporary accommodation into secure long-term accommodation. I urge the Government to consider that in relation to children’s well-being.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I add my support to Amendment 114, which I believe provides a more flexible approach to achieving the Government’s aims of keeping down the cost of school uniforms while ensuring that the legislation before us is better future-proofed to potential changes in individual school policies. For instance, noble Lords may have seen reports of the growing number of schools, particularly primary schools, that are replacing traditional uniforms with activewear uniforms that consist of practical, weather-appropriate sportswear that is worn throughout the day. A recent Times article highlighted polling that found that 67% of primary school teachers would support their school adopting an always-active uniform policy and that schools that have done so have reported improvements in academic achievement, well-being and attendance.

This is just one example of how attitudes to school uniform are already changing. It may well be that the cap on items that the Government are talking about becomes irrelevant as attitudes to school uniform change, but surely it is better to have an annually reviewed monetary cap that allows schools to develop their uniform to the requirements of the pupils, parents and governing bodies than to arbitrarily choose a number of items which may, in the long term, mean that legislation needs to be revisited anyway.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 117, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, and Amendment 119, which was so powerfully and scarily introduced by my noble friend Baroness Boycott.

These clauses came from a very real attempt by the Government to limit parents’ spending at a time when the cost of living is so high. I spoke at great length at Second Reading and in Committee about how important school uniforms are. I talked about a 14 year-old girl whom I taught and most of whose pregnancy was hidden by her blazer. It is important, particularly for girls, that changing shapes are hidden during school. It promotes equality and unity.

Amendment 117 is particularly good about sport. I remember the first time we were given a full kit with all our numbers on it in Dyson Perrins CofE high school’s under-15 rugby side. It made us feel unbeatable—until we got beaten. Having listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, we need to make sure that they are not going to poison us. Local businesses often sponsor kits for local football teams; it seems churlish and idiotic not to accept it.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I speak briefly in support of Amendment 114. Throughout my teaching career, I taught in the most deprived communities on Merseyside, and I always observed that the parents with the least were the ones who took the greatest pride in how their children were attired. I pay huge tribute to them.

I understand where the Government are coming from on this: uniforms cost a lot. However, as I said in Committee, this is not the way to do it. There are so many “ands”, “ifs” and “buts”. For example, a uniform in the school colours that consists of a kilt, a braided blazer and a jumper can cost a fortune compared to five items that are simply branded. It is quite difficult to know how to move forward, but the old way of doing it was probably better, whereby you could obtain a uniform grant, and many local authorities still do that.

We all share the same goal of making school uniforms affordable for every family, but good intentions without practical wisdom can lead us precisely where we do not wish to go. I fear that if we are faced with a three-item cap, this could happen. Let me speak plainly about what happens when policy meets the playground. The Schoolwear Association tells us that 85% of retailers believe schools will drop branded PE kits entirely to avoid breaching the cap. When that happens, families do not suddenly pay less; they pay more. They turn to Nike or Adidas, the commercial brands that cost nearly double what specialist school suppliers charge. An £11 school PE top becomes a £20 branded alternative.

It gets worse. Schools in the West Midlands are already dropping particular sports from the curriculum because the new guidance prevents them having school-specific sport kits for those activities. One school that was mentioned in the Times last week has adopted as its school kit “casual sportswear”. As I say, that is not really a school uniform, but it is very expensive to wear, and no doubt the branded sports kit as a school uniform—albeit three items—can be far more expensive than a five-item school uniform.

We risk pricing children out of sport entirely, not through expensive uniforms but through their absence. The child whose parents cannot afford the expensive commercial kit will become the one left on the sidelines. The very children we seek to protect become more visible in their disadvantage, not less.

We have learnt, sometimes painfully, that good legislation must be workable legislation. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, offers us a different approach, one that focuses on actual cost rather than arbitrary numbers. It gives schools clarity about what they can require families to spend, while allowing children the opportunity to be in branded clothing.

I am also in favour of the very important amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. My only observation is that many clothing items of course come from China, and it would be difficult to get the Chinese Government to stop child labour, never mind putting chemicals into items, but it is an issue that we as a society should certainly look towards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I am happy to have added my name to Amendments 121A and 131A by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I am grateful to officials from the Department for Education who had a meeting with us to discuss these amendments and the reasoning behind them.

The reasoning behind those amendments is really simple. The Sara Sharif incident happened despite multiple reviews looking into not dissimilar cases, in some cases over previous decades. In this case, I do feel that almost an extreme preventive approach is required to make sure that we do not have a repetition. The point was made by the officials that there have been significant improvements in the quality of children’s services in most of the country and about two-thirds are now in a reasonable shape, but that raises the question: what about the other third?

If there is another case, God forbid, like Sara Sharif —and history, for I am a historian by background, teaches us that that probably will happen—the opprobrium that will be heaped upon whichever unfortunate Ministers and officials happen to be in office at the time will be considerable and, in our view, is avoidable. We should mitigate that risk by assuming that we have to legislate for the one-third of children’s services that are not in good shape, because that is almost certainly where the accidents will happen. One of the key findings of the Sara Sharif review was that there have been systemic weaknesses again and again, despite all the inquiries and the well-intentioned actions that followed them. This is important enough that we feel we have to prepare and assume that the worst might happen and do everything in our power to prevent it.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendments 121A and 131A. There is a real problem of mistrust with elective home education against traditional education. I acknowledge my noble friend Lord Crisp, and am delighted to be on his working party to try to do something about it.

I was in the same meeting as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and my noble friend Lord Russell where we talked to the DfE. It was rather wonderful, because instead of talking about technicalities, one of the people there started talking about cricket, which I am much happier with than Section 31s and things. He accused us of setting the field for a bad ball—so we were being extremes. Obviously, I came back with no setting the field for a bad ball but putting some sweepers out as well just in case. The whole point of legislation is to avoid the disasters, the out of the ordinary, the Sara Sharifs. We were also told that a possible future home visit might deter parents from seeking help with a Section 31. Again, I cannot see why. These amendments are incredibly sensible and thoughtful, and their spirit would help those avoidable disasters, which, tragically, may well happen.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I have also added my name to Amendment 121A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. This is a very important set of amendments. I welcome the fact that many of them are about strengthening safeguarding. That is really important.

I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, because he had, as ever, some very important points to make. I do not agree with everything he said, but I agree that the time is ripe have a broader debate about a wider set of issues around the whole issue of home education that go outside the scope of this Bill. I hope it will be possible to do that. I also agreed with the noble Lord about the need for any safeguarding action to be proportionate, but it is my view that the targeting of action—as it is in Amendment 121A, so that

“local authorities must consent to the withdrawal of a child from school”

if they are involved in either child protection plans or are a child in need as classified under Section 17 of that Act—is proportionate in trying to provide additional support for vulnerable children and making sure that they do not fall through the cracks.

We have heard too many times, over the years, these heartbreaking cases of children who have fallen through the cracks—the most recent one, of course, was the harrowing and terrible case of Sara Sharif—because of a lack of visibility. This amendment would ensure that greater visibility is given to these children, which is why I added my name to it. I know people have different views on this, but that is my reason for believing that it is a proportionate amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, I am slightly disappointed that she did not comment on something that I would like to hear from her. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for whom I have enormous admiration—particularly as he was very kind about Mossbourne just now—said that there are plenty of schools like the one in episode two of “Adolescence”. It really bugs me that, although “Adolescence” is an extraordinary piece of drama, it is now being taken as a documentary. It is a dystopian view of schools. Will the Minister assure the House that there are not plenty of schools like in episode two of “Adolescence”?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am more than happy to do that. The point we have raised consistently throughout this is that it is right that parents have the ability to home-educate their children, if that is what they choose to do, but the idea that they are forced to do that because the vast majority of our schools are bad is simply wrong. The vast majority of our schools do a very good job for children. That is why the vast majority of children are educated within them and benefit from that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wei (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 161A, 175ZA, 175ZB and 175ZC in my name. These amendments sit in a part of the Bill that would be felt most sharply not in Whitehall but in kitchens and living rooms by parents doing their best for children whose needs do not fit neatly in the school system. When Parliament reaches into family life, it has to do so with care, because it is easy to create a framework that looks reasonable on paper and yet breathes mistrust in practice.

Again, I want to acknowledge at the outset the Government’s movement in this group. Government Amendment 158 recognises the reality of exam access and ensures that information about GCSE routes can be provided to parents who ask for it. Amendment 159 creates a regular forum for parents to raise concerns and discuss how this regime operates. Amendment 161 tidies the drafting around exam-related provisions. These are sensible steps. They start to show an understanding that families need information and a channel of engagement, and I welcome them.

Yet there remains a gap between permission and protection. Information may be offered, but access can still fail, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and others. A forum may be held, but families can still feel unheard when nothing changes. These amendments in my name aim to close that gap with light-touch safeguards that strengthen legitimacy and reduce conflict. With the Government having shown that they are listening, I think that many of us hope that, on these quite non-contentious amendments, they will also come back with suggested changes to the Bill, as well as afterwards in the statutory guidance, to understand these realities.

Amendment 161A would require each local authority to establish a home education parental advisory board, composed primarily of parents with recent experience of elective home education in the area. We are not trying to create new bureaucracy for its own sake; it is about a practical feedback loop. Families most affected by these powers are often those most able to spot unintended consequences earlier than we can in this environment. When policy is made without their input, misunderstanding becomes routine, and routine misunderstanding can become the culture of the system. Advisory boards would keep local authorities grounded in reality; they would create discipline around reasoning, and when an authority departs from a formal recommendation, my amendment suggests that it needs to explain why. That simple requirement can improve decision-making and build trust.

I want to express strong support for Amendment 160 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, which addresses a long-standing injustice that the House should not tolerate any longer. Home-educated children face serious obstacles in accessing examinations. Parents are left to navigate a patchwork of centres, fees, refusals, capacity limits and inconsistent arrangements. This is not just in small cases—it is in many instances. Qualifications open doors, and access is important; we must not make the children pay the price. With my own children, we had to travel several hundred miles to the south coast pretty much for all their GCSEs, and you can imagine how many they did, how many you multiply that by, and how many hotel stays that meant for my dear wife, who did most of the heavy lifting, although I drove a few times myself.

My Amendment 175ZC would place a clear duty on local authorities to secure reasonable access to approved exam centres, building on the thinking around Amendment 160, including adjustments for children with special educational needs. That would ensure that the responsibility is not left just to good will or market convenience. Somebody mentioned that, in the summer of last year, around 47,000 home-educated children in England were in their exam years, yet there are fewer than 200 centres listed as supporting them, many with limited capacity—and there is uneven geographic coverage. Whether a child can access qualifications should not depend on commercial viability or geography; we need to provide equitable access to this basic infrastructure as a responsibility of the state.

Amendment 175ZA deals with the related harm that is already appearing. Some providers are withdrawing opportunities for home-educated children in anticipation of new compliance burdens. Museums, activities, learning programmes and even basic services can become quietly harder to access. That may not be the Government’s intention but, because you are talking about a higher level of scrutiny and information-sharing requirements, that is already causing people to hold back. This amendment would draw a clear statutory line against discrimination and extra administrative hurdles imposed solely because a child is educated otherwise than at school. Lawful educational choice should not become a reason for exclusion.

Finally, Amendment 175ZB addresses the people who will operate these powers. I welcome the fact that the Government have indicated that training will be provided to those in local authorities working with home-educating families, and I welcome that. The House knows that guidance can be diluted over time, especially when you are under pressure and you have lots of families to look after with not much more funding. This amendment would require a national training standard to be issued, covering elective home education and related SEND, lawful decision-making and the avoidance of unconscious bias when dealing with these families. These families deserve consistency, and officers deserve clarity; a system with serious powers needs competent hands.

Safeguarding works best when families co-operate, and co-operation relies on trust. Trust is earned through fairness, understanding and clear routes for participation. These amendments would strengthen these foundations, and I hope that the Government show good will towards the many home-educating families who are going to have huge disruption to their lives in the coming years by looking at these amendments and others today, especially those on the area of access to exams. I urge the House to support them.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendments 160 and 175ZC, which we have heard so much about. The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, when talking to Amendment 158, painted a very rosy picture of parents being signposted to happy centres where their children could all take wonderful exams and obviously achieve enormous success. However, the reality, from what I have seen and heard, is a very different thing. Amendment 175ZC provides a very clean solution.

Access to exams is the golden thread. We want as many of our students to succeed—they have to do their exams. If they are driving hundreds of miles, that is not going to work. I genuinely think that working in partnership with local state schools would be quite a simple thing. There is always room in an exam hall for an extra 10 people, and you have the invigilators already. It would be a very simple thing, so I urge the Government to accept these amendments.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, in the spring of 2024, my noble friend Lady Barran was kind enough to allow me to explore what is going wrong with GCSE provision for home-educated people. I was foolish enough to think that the election would be in October, so I never got to the end of that process, but it is clear from the work that I did that there are a number of things the Government can do to help.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, it was a pleasure to listen to the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, which was about a modest change to the remit of the TRA. However, I support Amendment 190, to which I have added my name, precisely not to extend the TRA’s remit in two particular ways—that the TRA should be allowed to consider, as the noble Baroness opposite said, complaints about behaviour before someone becomes a qualified and practising teacher, and that it should be allowed to consider complaints after someone has stopped teaching.

I do not know whether there is any confusion in the minds of anyone in the Government. Clearly, if someone interrupts their teaching and then wants to come back to it, that is a different matter. If we are talking about people who have permanently left teaching, though, it seems unreasonable for the TRA to proceed. With regard to people against whom the TRA might seek to proceed before they have started teaching, the National Education Union says:

“Once the door is opened to pre-career conduct, it becomes very difficult to draw principled boundaries. How far back should investigations reach? Should conduct as a teenager or student be included? What weight should be given to immaturity, context, or personal development?”


What about what both the noble Baroness opposite and I described in the meeting with Minister Gould, which I was very pleased to attend, as “youthful high jinks”, which in no way reaches any kind of criminality but someone might seek to complain about?

There is a real problem here. Even Minister Gould said that she could see we were saying that these proposals seemed to be too much of a broad brush, and that is indeed my concern. Teachers are rightly held to very high standards and, although we heard some egregious examples of bad behaviour from teachers, in general the vast majority not only are held to high standards but meet and exceed them. Therefore, to create the pressure of the possibility that someone could complain about pre-career conduct or post-retirement conduct seems to be an unnecessary burden to put on both the teaching profession and the TRA, which is not currently able to manage the workload it has, although that is not my prime consideration.

Noble Lords will have heard from the noble Baroness opposite that during the meeting we hoped that there might be some movement on this. Like her, I have now had the letter from Minister Gould, who says:

“I also want to assure you that we are committing to setting out in guidance a framework which makes clear the factors that will need to be considered before the TRA can proceed with an investigation … We will do this in consultation with the sector and unions in due course”.


As the noble Baroness opposite said, and as has been said from many corners of this Chamber on many occasions, setting out guidance in a framework is not the same as having something in the Bill. The NEU concludes:

“Even if guidance later seeks to limit this, primary legislation would authorise the power, and guidance alone cannot cure an overly broad statutory remit”.


It is with regret that I say that I think the Government have got it wrong on this. However, I am slightly pleased that there will be a consultation and I am sure that the sector and the unions will engage very vigorously in that. If this amendment is not accepted, I hope that this being in the Bill does not set the tone and imply that we think there is every reason to have open season on anyone who might become a teacher or once was a teacher.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hampton Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 201 in my name, which deals with the issue of faith-based selection in school admissions. This speaks to the missing data that the Schools Minister raised in Committee in the other place. The Department for Education currently does not collect data on how admissions policies are applied in schools and therefore does not know how many parents are missing out on a place at their preferred school because of their religion or because they do not have a religion. Collecting data would shed light on what the impact of faith-selective admissions is for parents and pupils, and on whether such selection is contributing to or undermining parental choice. This is not an argument against faith schools; many provide an excellent education and are deeply rooted in their communities. Rather, the purpose of Amendment 201 is to promote fairness and genuine parental choice by limiting the extent to which oversubscription criteria can be used to select pupils on the basis of religion.

In Committee, the Government pointed to the existing admissions framework, by which admissions must be published and applied consistently. But the question is not simply whether rules exist on paper but what those rules do in practice when a school is oversubscribed. If admissions turn on faith tests that some families cannot meet, because they are either of a different faith or of no faith, then, in reality, the local school is not equally accessible to the local community.

There is also the wider issue of inclusion and cohesion. Selection by faith risks narrowing pupil diversity and, over time, separating children along religious and, sometimes, ethnic lines during their formative years. Evidence suggests that faith-based selection can correlate with lower inclusion. The Sutton Trust has found that faith schools are more socially selective, admitting fewer pupils eligible for free school meals than would be expected given their local status. Research highlighted by the London School of Economics has reported the underadmission of children with special educational needs and disabilities to faith primary schools. The Office of the Schools Adjudicator has reported concerns from local authorities that faith-based criteria can in some cases disadvantage looked-after and previously looked-after children.

The aim here is straightforward: to ensure that publicly funded schools serve their whole community and that parental choice is not narrowed by criteria unrelated to a child’s needs or a family’s proximity to the school. Amendment 201 is a measured step that would support fairness in admissions and help ensure that our children are brought together rather than separated. Amendment 201 promotes fairness and parental choice in schools’ admissions policy, and I commend it to the House.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 199, to which I have added my name. In this, I am channelling my inner Baroness Wolf of Dulwich—the noble Baroness sends her apologies that she cannot be in her place. This amendment attempts to rectify another example in the Bill in which a well-intentioned idea is turning out to be a mistake. It is a bit of an example of top-down government seemingly punishing a school for being successful. Whereas education is all about nurturing and helping improvement in those who are less successful, this is a cold logic to reduce empty places and surplus capacity.

In an ideal world, the number of children wanting to go to various local schools would fit neatly into the number of places in local schools, but it does not. That is, in part, because parents are now much more aware of the league tables, Ofsted inspections, academy specialisations and all sorts of online opinions. It also reduces the most important incentive for a school to succeed and improve—one that has been at the heart of Labour’s and successive Governments’ academies programme, which has itself been at the heart of 20 years of school improvement, and which threatens to be reversed by this.

If good and oversubscribed schools can expand, and unpopular schools are not filled up with unwilling attendees, all schools would have a strong incentive to be good. When school choice and academisation were introduced, there were predictions that we would end up with lots of sink schools and a significant number of children having an even worse education than before recruitment was freed up. This did not happen. There has been a steady decrease in the number of badly performing schools. Competition works, not by creating a monopoly but by incentivising and driving improvement.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, my Amendment 230 in this group is on off-rolling. Whatever the good points of academisation, there has been a strong suspicion—a fact, in some cases—that certain schools are off-rolling pupils who are seen to be a problem. The best of the academies are probably dealing with this. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, being impassioned as a Minister in saying that we must stop this. There is a strong suspicion that it goes on, possibly underneath, at a school level, when a teacher or headmaster is worried about personal development. Whether we like it or not, that strong suspicion exists, and there has been a rise in the number of exclusions going on.

When the Minister answers, I hope that she will tell us how this is being dealt with. If it is not being dealt with, it is a problem that we will have to get to grips with. I hope that there will be a coherent look at this, so we know exactly what the case is. There is a strong suspicion that special educational needs is a factor pushing this. I have known people going through this, where it has been assumed that every pupil in a pupil referral unit has at least one special educational need. The Minister has been engaged in these types of areas, and I hope that, when she comes to answer for the Government, she can tell us what the Government are going to do. If there is even a suspicion, we should find out the truth and look at it coherently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I shall make a couple of brief comments on the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, introduced so well. I draw the House’s attention to proposed new subsection (2)(k). If you take part in physical activity only in educational establishments, you generally stop doing it when you leave, so getting in outside bodies to say that playing in a team at the weekend or in the evening is a reasonably normal thing to do means that you are much more likely to do it once you are outside that environment. It is something we have consistently found. It probably applies to other areas as well, but, if we are talking about a coherent sports strategy, that is one thing that the Government really must give more time and thought to.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak mainly to Amendment 206, but, as somebody who has taught more PSHE days than he cares to remember, I think I might make a few comments on this one. I have spoken many times about how I think we need to bring PSHE and citizenship much more into the regular curriculum on a weekly basis. To put my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries of Pentregarth’s mind at ease, his amendment looked to me like a scheme that could work: it is very similar to what we teach. I think that, with all due respect to several House of Lords committees, the subtle differences are not going to filter their way down to schools. I think we need to teach this. We need to make sure it is important. Teachers are very good at interpreting this, schools are very good and the basic subtleties do not really matter to me, I am afraid.

In response to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, I would say, “Please can I join the school with an hour of sport a day?” And can we hurry up as well? My daughter is in year 10: she is locked in the bathroom, but she would be really keen to hear that. If we are trying to get kids back into school and we have nearly 1 million missing school, might this not be worth trying?

I actually rose to speak to Amendment 208, and will give one quote, from Tender. If noble Lords do not know it, Tender is an unbelievable expert charity that delivers RSE to young people, from primary schools all the way to sixth form. Its CEO, Susie McDonald, said: “We are all too aware that 16 to 19 year-olds are at the highest risk of abuse in their relationships. At this critical age, young people simply cannot be left without the vital education to keep themselves and others safe. We have all seen the horrifying results, from rising levels of coercive control to the murder of teenage girls by teenage boys. We know how to prevent it: with mandatory, high-quality relationship education, all the way to 18”.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hampton Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for a very moving speech there, but I will address his point directly.

This amendment does not object to a child having a basic phone for safety. My plucky 11 year-old son travels to and from school every day with a big rucksack and a violin on the Circle line and the Jubilee line, come rain or snow. It worries the hell out of me every time he leaves the house, and I am not happy until he is back home. That is why he has a Nokia dumb phone in his pocket, so he can call me if he needs to. I confess that he sometimes plays “Pong” on a black and white LED screen when he is bored, but that does not damage his frontal cortex or bring him into touch with predators. He does not have a smartphone with all its nasty algorithms. Until they invent such a box as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, quite reasonably described, that is what a smartphone contains.

I do not, for instance, allow my son to go to the local pub, the Westbourne, where he might be beaten up. For the same reason, I do not let him on Instagram, with all its bullying. I do not allow him to go to the Ministry of Sound—wonderful organisation though that is—because he will be confronting sexual predators. For the same reason, I do not let him on Snapchat. I do not give him methamphetamine—whizz—or Es, because they are addictive and would mess with his brain, as do TikTok and YouTube reels. I do not, for instance, allow him on X, where he might see internet filth. For the same reason, he is not allowed to go to Soho to watch peep shows.

Toxic digital platforms are designed for adults and are engineered for addiction, fraudsters and predators—and, I am afraid, they are screwing with too many of our children’s brains. A simple device that makes calls and sends texts poses none of these challenges. That is what children should have. That is why schools should be in a regulatory position to ban smartphones during school hours.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I have spoken on this issue so many times in this House that I am not going to repeat myself—really—except to say that I have never taught in a school that allows mobile phones either in school or on the way to school. I have taught in some of the highest-performing schools—non-selective state schools that are some of the highest performing for pupil progress in the country—and I do not think the two are unconnected.

We do not need mobile phones in schools. They distract and they disturb. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that I am sure we can take a smartphone, take out all the stuff the student needs and give it to them for the day. We do it with laptops for the pupils all the time. We do not need them on the way to school. It is a huge irony that we pack our children off to school with many hundreds of pounds-worth of equipment in their pocket and then worry about their safety. As part of a strategy to build a safe environment for our children online, the first step is very simple: ban phones from schools entirely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

I will speak very briefly to Amendment 217. I know from my own teaching experience—and anyone who has seen the film documentary “Idris Elba: Our Knife Crime Crisis” will know—exactly how important it is that permanently excluded children are folded into some support system before they are lost to crime or worse. This is a very simple amendment that could save young lives.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The amendments in group 8 relate to the school exclusion framework. We firmly believe that every pupil, no matter their background, deserves to learn in a safe, calm and orderly classroom. Supporting good behaviour in schools is essential to achieving this, and we will continue to back teachers and school leaders in maintaining high standards.

Amendment 217, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to require local authorities to assess the needs of children under the Children Act 1989 whenever a pupil is permanently excluded. Section 17 of the Act already places a duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need. Naming specific groups risks narrowing eligibility and limiting local flexibility.

The Working Together to Safeguard Children guidance makes clear local authorities and partners should identify emerging problems and unmet needs, including for children facing exclusion.  Our reforms to family help and multi-agency child protection, supported by over £500 million this year, will embed education experience within multi-agency teams. We are introducing a duty on safeguarding partners to ensure education settings are represented at both strategic and operational levels.

Amendments 218 and 219, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seek to introduce a presumption against reinstating pupils who have been excluded twice and for extremely serious behaviour such as possession of a knife or offensive weapon, assaulting a teacher and sexual assault. To be absolutely clear, no child or teacher should ever feel unsafe at school. Safe, calm and orderly environments are central to the Bill and to our support for schools and teachers, and head teachers must retain the ability to use appropriate sanctions, including exclusions, to maintain safety and good behaviour.

Governing bodies play an essential role in reviewing exclusions and deciding on reinstatement on a case-by-case basis. A blanket presumption of reinstatement would remove their ability to judge whether an exclusion was lawful, reasonable and fair, and could risk limiting a child’s access to mainstream education and opportunities for successful reintegration. For this reason, we do not have plans to change the guidance in the way the noble Baroness asked about. School leaders should use early intervention and multi-agency assessments as soon as concerns arise, to identify needs early and avoid escalation.

The Government are delivering a strong package of behaviour support, including new attendance and behaviour hubs targeted at the schools most in need, and plan to consult on an internal suspension framework to help schools use these sanctions effectively, minimise lost learning and keep children engaged in their education. The Bill represents a major strengthening of safeguarding legislation, reinforcing the importance of safety, well-being and behaviour in schools. Importantly, it aligns with wider action to protect young people from harm, including banning dangerous weapons, tightening online knife sale controls and expanding programmes that prevent youth violence.

For all these reasons, we do not consider that removing governing boards’ discretion through a presumption against reinstatement is necessary or appropriate, and I hope the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hampton Excerpts

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

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to this group of amendments. I thank the Minister in her absence for the meetings we have had away from your Lordships’ Chamber. Clearly, protecting our young people is close to all our hearts and is something that we will keep a watching brief on. We have looked at the Government’s proposals. Early on, when I arrived at your Lordships’ House, I worked with the Children’s Commissioner and a briefing was sent to all noble Lords in June last year about something I was trying to bring forward on Report to try to make young people’s lives better. On that occasion, I failed to convince noble Lords on both the main two Benches and, as we live in a democracy, I chose not to pursue that.

I wish the Government well with their intentions. Clearly, as the opposition here—the smaller opposition—our duty will be to continue to hold the Government to account on the reassurances they have given us in briefings and, more importantly, on what they have written to us both from your Lordships’ House and the other place. These Benches are not minded to oppose what the Government are proposing, but we are putting them on notice that we will continue to watch the progress and we wish this Bill well.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Motion K1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I thank the Bill team and the Minister for our very useful meeting yesterday, and, as ever, I must declare my interest as a state school teacher.

When we talked to the Bill team yesterday, I thought that they almost seemed to use the language of this amendment. As we have heard, the Sara Sharif review says that the overview is at fault, not the system; but this amendment seems the very way of tightening oversight without, as has been mentioned, penalising adoptive parents and children, where the concern was about a previous iteration of their life. This seems to be the crux of the amendment. The Minister actually said the Bill says that “almost all” children fall within the Bill. I think this tightens it up, so hopefully all children will fall within the purview of this Bill.

Moreover, it seems to me that, in the Bill as it stands, the local authority could not require a child who left local authority care and returned to their family, say, three years ago, to attend school, while they could for a child who came off child protection three years ago. I do not understand that at all. At the moment, I am not clear about the Bill as it stands. I think Motion K1 makes it much clearer, and I implore the Government to accept this.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has just said. As a family judge, I had a number of cases where children had been on protection orders—and, in particular, supervision orders—and I vividly recall an appalling case in Liverpool where there was a continuing supervision order that was utterly disregarded. I called the Director of Social Services to explain it, and she was absolutely thinking that it did not really matter; so everything that can be done to put added pressure on making sure that children who are home educated are kept under proper supervision by local authorities seems to me to be absolutely crucial.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)]

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

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

“This is a gift to allergic families”;


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


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


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


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

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

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motion L1, and I am looking round to see where everybody is.

The Minister described Motion L1 as a “last resort” and, when we met them yesterday, the Bill team seemed to think that the example of a highly successful school next to a school that is struggling is quite unlikely. But I know from my own experience what it is like, both professionally and as a parent of two children. This seems to be an efficiency drive that ignores both parents and children. While I admire the intent, as a parent I would be deeply unhappy if access to my preferred school was closed in order to even up numbers. Should the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, be minded to take this to a vote, I would go with her.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hampton Excerpts

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

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I largely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, who brings all the rigour that you would expect from an MBA from Harvard Business School to the analysis of this problem. Ultimately, it is a business issue. These companies are making a vast amount of money from, basically, monetising the time that these children are spending on what are designed to be addictive products. That is the simple truth. Until and unless we find a way of disrupting the business models of the companies behind those platforms in such a way that it hurts them—the point at which individual directors and senior executives know they will be held personally accountable and may well go to jail, as well as the companies being fined vast amounts of money—there will really not be a tipping point. This often feels like pushing water uphill.

I want to make a point about educational technology. We are focusing very much on smartphones and the terrible effects they are having on so many young people. Simultaneously, the Government have been promoting, quietly but overtly over many years, the increased use of technology in schools, from primary schools onwards, partly as an understandable result of Covid, when your Lordships’ House even managed to embrace technology to a degree that many of us would have thought completely unthinkable. Schools have indeed been embracing technology, and in many cases the effects on the young people in those schools that have done so are not good.

Many countries of the world have recognised this and are doing a complete U-turn on their previous eagerness to get children in front of touchscreens and computer programs. They are trying to reverse the effects because they have been doing it for long enough that they have seen the evidence produced of the effect that it has on children: reduced attention spans and reduced vocabulary. In Scandinavia—surprise, surprise—libraries are doing the unthinkable: they are bringing back books, having largely decided to no longer invest in them five or six years ago.

I appeal to the Government, and particularly to the Department for Education, to look carefully at what is going on in schools. Schools need advice from the Government about how to deal with this issue. The blandishments of these companies, which are large, sophisticated and profitable in selling their products to schools, have all the smoothness of a tobacco or asbestos salesman, but in many cases their terms and conditions mean they are monetising those children and their details, along with the schools’ details, and the educational product they are producing is substandard.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Motion D on the phone ban. The Minister talked about strengthening guidance and Ofsted being able to inspect schools’ mobile phone policies, but I speak as a parent as well as a teacher when I say that parents do not understand statutory footing; they understand a legal ban. If the Government want to reduce unnecessary burdens on head teachers then, from what we have seen over and again, that has to mean an outright ban in the Bill.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Mohammed of Tinsley in his Motion A1. We are united across this House and, indeed, across Parliament in our desire to protect children from the significant harms of the online world, but, as we consider these amendments in lieu, we are presented with three rather different legislative strategies.

The Government’s proposal in Motion A asks this House to grant sweeping, enduring Henry VIII powers to the Secretary of State, allowing them to amend or repeal primary legislation via secondary regulations. The Government’s amendments remain completely silent on the predatory nature of addictive design. By ignoring the psychological triggers engineered to hijack a child’s attention, the Government are fighting big tech with one arm tied behind their back, regulating, as we have heard today, the user rather than fixing the product.

I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and his tireless and principled campaigning in this area, and I welcome the fact that his Motion A2 attempts to rein in the Government’s executive overreach by applying a two-year sunset clause to these Henry VIII powers. I recognise that his amendments are no longer a blanket ban, but his core proposal remains a blunt instrument. Although well-intentioned, this approach is built entirely on exclusion. It risks creating a dangerous cliff edge for young people: rather than helping children to safely develop digital resilience, it would potentially suddenly expose them to the unfiltered internet the moment they turned 16.

Motion A1, by contrast, offers a far more precise, workable and future-proof alternative. Instead of handing unchecked powers to Ministers or trying to build an impossible wall around the internet, it places direct statutory duties on tech companies to clean up their platforms. As we have heard, that is essential. Under our Amendment 38Q, where any user is identified as being under 16, the platform must apply proportionate measures to limit the supply of addictive design features and prevent access to harmful content. As my honourable friend, Munira Wilson MP, stated in the Commons:

“This needs to be big tech’s seatbelt moment”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/4/26; col. 920.]


Recent US court cases, which the noble Lord, Lord Nash, mentioned, have exposed internal documents showing that tech executives deliberately designed these platforms to keep children hooked. Motion A1 would dismantle this addictive architecture, preserve parliamentary sovereignty and spark a race to the top for safe, enriching online spaces. I urge the House to support that approach.