Report stage in the Lords
Lords Report Stage covered five groups of amendments spanning school allergy safety (Benedict's Law), a statutory ban on smartphones, school exclusion safeguards, children's rights impact assessments, and a wide miscellaneous group on tutoring, apprenticeships, climate resilience, edtech regulation, SEND, and children's well-being measurement.
B(Put mandatory allergy safety on a statutory footing for every school in England — that is what Amendment 209 demands, and it is what Benedict Blythe's death at five years old makes unavoidable. Outside homes, schools are where the most allergy fatalities occur: 680,000 pupils in England have allergies, two per classroom, and the current government guidelines do not even mention allergies. Schools must hold spare adrenaline auto-injectors, train their staff and have a proper policy in place. The department promised proposals last autumn; none came. A rushed round-table yesterday and a draft guidance at the eleventh hour is not good enough. I need to know two things from the Minister: will the statutory guidance require every school to hold spare AAIs — not 'can' purchase them, but *must* — and will the Government fund it centrally, as they funded defibrillators?My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to move Amendment 209 and to support the other amendments in this group. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for moving this amendment in Committee, as unfortunately I could not stay in the Chamber that night. In turn, I have taken on the amendment because my noble friend Lady Prentis has been unable to take part in this Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Ramsey and Lady Bennett, for adding their names to the amendment. As this amendment was debated at the previous stage of the Bill, I will not repeat all the arguments. In summary, it seeks to introduce mandatory allergy safety policies for all schools in England. It marks the culmination of a long campaign in conjunction with the inspirational Helen Blythe following the tragic death of her son Benedict in 2021 when he was only five. An inquest last year concluded that Benedict’s death was avoidable. It was caused by the accidental ingestion of cow’s milk after his school failed to follow the processes and procedures in place to protect him. I know that we have heard this before, but I want noble Lords to think about it for a moment. Outside of homes, schools are the setting where the most allergy fatalities occur. Only putting these protective measures on a statutory footing will ensure that there are adequate protections for the two children in every classroom who have allergies. Helen has worked tirelessly to establish the safety measures necessary to ensure that no child is ever lost again in such a tragic and avoidable way. I pay tribute to the work of her Member of Parliament, Alicia Kearns, to other campaign groups and to other families—I know we will hear from noble Lords about this—who, sadly, have been through these tragedies and campaigned so hard. There are also the families who live with the fear of allergic reaction and sensitivities every single day when they send their child off to school or another…
Voluntary guidance has failed — schools are under huge pressure and without a statutory framework, allergy safety slips through the cracks. Half of all schools stock no spare auto-injector. My probing amendments address the gaps: Amendment 210 would bind external caterers contractually to a school's allergy policy, and Amendment 212 extends that to all third-party providers on school premises. Amendment 213 and Amendment 214 raise the question of who funds and co-ordinates the supply of AAIs — leaving it to individual schools risks duplication and waste. We did this with defibrillators; the same logic applies here. If the drafting of Amendment 209 is not quite right, bring forward government amendments at Third Reading — what matters is not ownership but outcome.My Lords, Amendment 209 goes to the heart of what families rightly expect schools to do: keep children safe. This is not a novel or radical proposal. It responds to a long-standing and well-evidenced failure of the current system. For too long we have relied on guidance and good will, yet allergy safety in schools remains inconsistent and, in some cases, dangerously inadequate. This amendment matters because it moves us from aspiration to assurance. Children continue to experience severe allergic reactions at school. Some have died. Families live with the daily fear that a simple mistake—a contaminated surface, a misunderstanding, a delayed response—could be fatal. The tragic death of Benedict Blythe exposed not a single error but a systemic lack of preparedness. His family’s determination to prevent another such tragedy deserves our respect—and action. I also recognise the work of the National Allergy Strategy Group and its member organisations. Its position paper, produced with the Benedict Blythe Foundation, sets out in calm, forensic detail why voluntary guidance has failed. Schools are under huge pressures, as we have heard, and without a statutory framework, allergy safety too often slips through the cracks. I understand that the Minister met the group yesterday, as we have heard, which is welcome, and I hope she will update the House on the outcome of that discussion and any assurances given. I became involved in this issue for a simple reason: a neighbour’s child is afraid to eat in his own school canteen because of his allergy. When a child cannot safely eat at school, something is plainly wrong. That quiet daily anxiety is shared by thousands of families. Amendment 209 is proportionate and practical. Without legislation, we cannot guarantee consistent protection for all our children. The four amendments in my name are probing. I seek reassurance on how the framework will work in practice. Amendment 210 addresses a well-known gap: external catering provider…
Every school must have these instruments — whatever form they take — guaranteed to be in date because the law says so, with staff confidently trained. There should never be a moment of crisis where people are asking 'What do we do? Who knows? Where do we find it? Is the cupboard locked?' That only stops happening if the rules are set down in black and white in legislation.My Lords, I will speak briefly, having attached my name to Amendment 209, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, so powerfully introduced. I express my strongest possible support for Amendment 209 and commend the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for making important points in his amendments. I will tell a little tale of how I got involved in this. Like most people involved in politics, I have encountered around the country parents who say that they are worried about allergies and their child at school. In my case, I was walking down a corridor of this House, past the dining rooms, and the Benedict Blythe Foundation was holding an event to highlight the issue. I was almost literally dragged in to meet Helen Blythe, who has such a tale of horror but a powerful voice to say that she does not want this to happen to any other parent’s child. That is a demonstration of where we have got to today: campaigning works and people can make a difference through their actions. I particularly want to record that. The case has been powerfully made, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cotes, said that there may be further technical solutions to injector pens. We do not need to argue about that. It is about the idea that every school has these instruments, whatever they are, guaranteed to be in date because the law says they have to be, and has teachers and other staff confidently trained to be able to use them in a moment of crisis. That should be absolutely basic. There should never be any question that, when something goes wrong, people are asking, “What do we do?”, “Who knows?”, “Where do we find it?”, “Is the cupboard locked?” We all know that those kinds of things can happen, unless the rules are set down in black and white in legislation. That is why I very much hope we will hear positively from the Minister that the Government are prepared to put this in the Bill, whatever the fine detail, because a child’s life is so important.
I declare my interest as parliamentary ambassador for the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation — and tonight my severely peanut-allergic daughter is at home because of the hours we sit. I am hopeful the Minister will confirm that statutory guidance will require schools to have effective allergy policies, to hold spare adrenaline devices, and that staff will receive mandatory training. If so, I will be able to tell my daughter that these late nights can achieve remarkable things.My Lords, I support Amendment 209, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, to which I have added my name. I declare my interest as a parliamentary ambassador for the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation. In doing so, I will not see my youngest daughter this evening, who is severely allergic to peanuts, because of the rather unusual hours that our House sits. I hope I will see her tomorrow evening, Chief Whip permitting, as she will be off to school in the morning very early —and, like the rest of us, I need to sleep sometimes. No doubt she will use this opportunity to ask me to explain, not for the first time, what exactly it is that we do in the House of Lords and why so much of it is done after dark. I very much hope that tomorrow, I will be able to give her the best of all possible answers. I will remind her that, a few months ago, on 16 September to be exact, rather late that night, along with many other noble Lords who I see sitting here in the Chamber this evening, I was adding my voice in support of an amendment designed to keep children safe—children like her, in fact, who have the misfortune to suffer anaphylactic shock if they come into contact with a small piece of peanut or some other food, as she has twice, frighteningly, done. Along with others, and with the excellent support of the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, Allergy UK, Anaphylaxis UK and the Benedict Blythe Foundation, I argued then that the Government should ensure that all schools have spare EpiPens available in case of such emergencies and that staff are trained in their use. As the clock ticked towards midnight that night, my noble friend the Minister responded as follows: “The measures to support children with allergies proposed in this amendment could be achieved without requiring primary legislation; we will consider how we might take them forward”.—[Official Report, 16/9/25; col. 2187.] Tonight, I am hopeful that this is precisely what has happened, and that my noble…
My granddaughter — allergic to peanuts and sesame, carrying an EpiPen — attends a school that already follows the policies Amendment 209 would require. Those should be minimum standards and best practice everywhere, not the exception. The current statutory medical guidance is vague and open to interpretation, and even adapted guidance would remain just guidance unless the Minister can assure us it will be mandatory and comprehensive.My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, and particularly Amendment 209, in the names of my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes and other noble Lords who have added their names. I have a granddaughter, now aged 10, who from birth has been allergic to dairy, eggs and nuts. Through a lengthy medically managed programme she has been able to reduce substantially her reaction to dairy and eggs, but remains extremely vulnerable to peanuts and sesame. She carries an EpiPen, although mercifully she has not yet had cause to use it. These allergies remain a constant concern to her and her parents. Yet I regard her as being one of the fortunate ones. She is conscientious and very aware of what she can and cannot eat, but the inherent risks are heightened away from home, whenever, say, she is at a friend’s house or in a restaurant. Most importantly, she attends a school which has adopted and follows the policies and procedures stipulated by Amendment 209. I regard these as minimum standards to be followed by schools. They surely should be regarded as best practice. However, it appears that, despite allergy being the most chronic childhood condition in the UK, my granddaughter’s school is in the minority in specifying these protections and our legislation lags behind global comparators. This cannot be right. During term time, children spend most of their waking hours at school. Schools act in loco parentis, with all the legal duties of care that that entails, but current statutory medical guidance, as we have heard, is not specific to allergies. It is vague and open to interpretation. It has created a worrying gap in allergy safeguard provision. Even were this adapted specifically to address allergies, it would remain just guidance. Unless the Minister can assure us otherwise, it would not be mandatory and it is unlikely to be comprehensive, so it would not achieve the step change required. The adoption of Amendment 209, on the other hand, would go a long way towards…
Nineteen years ago I chaired this House's Science and Technology Committee inquiry into allergy — and even then we were saying that half of those who died from a reaction had had no previous serious reaction and that AAIs were not being used effectively. The 2017 Department of Health guidance is explicitly non-statutory. Schools are not required to hold auto-injectors. The cost of delay is massive. Five minutes is not very long — you cannot run from one side of a school to another before a child has a cardiac arrest. These amendments are 19 years overdue.My Lords, it was 19 years ago that I had the privilege of chairing the Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry into allergy for this House. I remind the House that, even then, we were saying that half of those who died from an allergic reaction had not had any previous serious reaction, and we highlighted the need for adrenaline auto-injectors and the fact that they were not being used effectively. The failure of pens was for several reasons, usually that the injection was not given intramuscularly, there was poor training or pens had passed their expiry date, were being used too late in a reaction or were not available at the time of the reaction. The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, and of my noble friend Lord Fryberg are incredibly important and are 19 years overdue. We really cannot carry on like this. There is guidance on the use of adrenaline auto-injectors in schools from the Department of Health in 2017, but it states: “This guidance is non-statutory”. It goes on to say: “The Children and Families Act 2014 requires governing bodies of English schools to make arrangements for supporting pupils with medical conditions”. The problem is, of course, that the management of allergies is not statutory, and children present with a very wide range of medical conditions, but there are not that many that present the medical emergency that an allergic reaction can present. The summary states that schools are not required to hold adrenaline auto-injectors. If they do not have one when a child is collapsing, even if the child has their own with them, the risk of that child’s death goes up significantly. The guidance is also very clear that the MHRA expert group from 2020 said that adrenaline should be administered at the first sign of a reaction, and that the risk of delay outweighs harm. I suggest that the cost of delay is absolutely massive and must be properly considered in terms of the cost of providing these pieces of equipment th…
I declare my interest as chief operating officer of the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation. One in five food-related allergic reactions in school-aged children occurs at school. If Amendment 209 is accepted, that would be a fitting tribute to five-year-old Benedict Blythe. Minister, please confirm: will the statutory guidance require a whole-school allergy policy; spare, in-date AAIs; mandatory staff training; a named governor lead; and Ofsted taking allergen management into account? Will the existing 2007 guidance be revised to require 999 to be called immediately and the AAI administered without delay? Will an SI enable schools to use new adrenaline delivery devices — including nasal sprays — as they become available? And will training and policies apply to all staff on site, including external caterers?My Lords, I support Amendments 209, 210 and 212 and declare my interest as the chief operating officer of the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, the UK’s food allergy charity. While some schools manage food allergies well, too many do not and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, expertly put it, with around two children in every classroom living with a food allergy, and one in five food-related allergic reactions occurring at school, the absence of clear policies and consistent staff training continues to place children at risk. These failings also affect attendance and undermine inclusion. Amendment 209 seeks to address these long-standing gaps. If it is accepted by the Government, that would represent a fitting tribute to five year-old Benedict Blythe, who tragically died from anaphylaxis at school, and to his mother Helen, whose tireless advocacy has brought us to this moment. Earlier this week, as others have said, Helen Blythe and representatives of national allergy charities met with the Minister for early years to discuss the urgent need for a robust statutory approach to allergy management in schools. The response and commitment from the Minister were extremely welcome and I hope that, tonight, those commitments from my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern will be confirmed from the Dispatch Box. At the outset, I shall list quite a few points where confirmation and clarification are needed, so, if my noble friend is unable to cover all these points today, will she commit to write to me and place a copy in the Library for all noble Lords to see? For the benefit of campaigners, allergy charities, clinicians and parents and carers of food-allergic children following this debate, I would be grateful if my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern could confirm the Government’s position on a number of points. First, will my noble friend confirm that it is the Government’s intention to address the long-standing and well-evidenced gaps in the management of allerg…
My son was five when we discovered his severe nut allergy — it happened on a cruise, and he was saved only by the immediate availability of hospital-level treatment. Had it happened at school, he most likely would not have survived. Thirty per cent of children affected have their first reaction at school. Half of all schools have no spare auto-injector. Auto-injectors alone are not enough — strategy, training and a comprehensive approach are what save lives.My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, for moving this amendment, and I associate myself with the excellent speeches made in support of it and the other amendments in the group. I also associate myself with the high praise for the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, for which I have the highest regard, and for the Benedict Blythe Foundation and the remarkable dedication of Helen Blythe. Her son Benedict was five years old when his milk allergy took his life. A plan was in place, but it was not followed. My son was five years old when we first discovered that he had a severe nut allergy. We had no idea—there were no signs or indications. He suffered a severe anaphylactic shock and we did not know what was happening to him. His life was saved by our extraordinary good fortune that it took place on a cruise and immediate hospital-level treatment was available. I am profoundly struck that his life was saved by being in proximity to the crucial care that he needed. For the most severe, like my son, auto-injectors are only a means of providing enough time to get necessary hospital treatment. At that time, if he had had such an attack in school, it is most likely that he would not have survived. Some 30% of children affected have their first reaction at school, the most frequent location outside the home setting. While progress has been made in some schools, as the Benedict Blythe Foundation research has shown, school preparedness for dealing with allergies is dangerously and tragically low, as evidenced by the fact that half of all schools have no spare auto-injectors. However, I stress that auto-injectors are not enough; it is strategy, training and other elements that will ensure that lives can be saved. The amendment proposes a sensible and comprehensive approach to create the right capacity and capability in all schools. I hope the Minister will provide reassurance that the Government are committed to a mandatory and comprehensive allergy safety…
Children's lives cannot depend on individual schools taking the initiative. Some schools are honest about what they can guarantee; others leave children to self-administer because the adults around them are untrained and unequipped. The current system is a postcode lottery and must be guaranteed by government policy.Every child must be safeguarded and safe from harm when they attend school. I remember, 15 years ago, what were called EpiPens. I had never heard of them until a parent came into school and told me about her child who had a particular allergy. We stocked EpiPens—one in each classroom, clearly labelled —and we trained the staff. I remember the staff being fearful, so we stabbed a grapefruit in those days to train ourselves. We did that on our own initiative because we understood our duty of care, but children’s lives cannot depend on individual schools taking the initiative. This must be guaranteed by government policy. The current system, I am sorry to say, is a postcode lottery. Some children are fortunate to attend schools that are honest about what they can guarantee. Others face confusion, inconsistency and danger. Children have learned from the age that they first enter school to bring their own food to school, to every meal, and to self-administer treatment, because the adults around them are untrained and unequipped.
Half of schools do not stock a spare auto-injector; 70% lack the recommended combination of spare pens, training and allergy policies; 20% of fatal food anaphylaxis reactions in school-aged children happen in schools. This is non-negotiable — the principle of Amendment 209 has our full support, as does the principle behind the amendments from Lord Freyberg requiring those contracted on school premises to follow the same policies.My Lords, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition understand how crucial allergy safety is in schools, and access to adrenaline auto-injectors is pivotal. Centralising and co-ordinating policy across education establishments is a much-needed step that would standardise current voluntary safety measures such as the provision of AAIs and provide a universal level of access to all students. That is a principle in Amendment 209, referred to as Benedict’s law, that we support. It would be remiss of me not to remind noble Lords: half of schools do not stock a spare auto-injector; 70% of schools do not have the recommended measures of spare pens, training and allergy policies, and individual healthcare plans in place; and 20% of fatal food anaphylaxis reactions in school-aged children or young people in England happen in schools. This is a critical issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said that it was “basic”, the noble Lord, Lord Remnant, referred to it as “best practice”, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said that the cost of delay is “massive”. They are entirely correct. We also support the principle behind the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. It makes sense that those contracted on school premises should predominantly follow the same policies as the schools themselves. This is all the more important when catering firms are involved, given the obvious heightened risk of allergic reactions to food. While there should, as always, be an appropriate analysis of the impact on both the taxpayer and the affected firms, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition understand the great importance of these measures. We hope, as many noble Lords have hoped tonight, that the Government see the merit of focusing on this and agree that schools should be safe places for everyone—and that should be non-negotiable.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)Lab21:00 HansardBefore September 2026 we will issue new statutory guidance — consulted on imminently — that for the first time puts specific focus on allergy safety. It will require schools to have a dedicated allergy safety policy, whole-school staff training, individual healthcare plans for every child whose condition requires active management, and a named governor and senior leader. Critically, the guidance will be clear that schools should hold spare AAIs: they can be purchased from a high street pharmacist for around £150 for two, and many schools already do so. We are working with DHSC to make procurement as easy and cheap as possible. Schools must take ownership of these life-saving devices. On Amendments 210 and 212 — prescribing contractual content with caterers through primary legislation is far too inflexible and unnecessary, given existing food regulations. On Amendments 213 and 214 — this is an important responsibility for schools themselves, not the NHS.My Lords, in concluding this group, I start by paying tribute to those who have campaigned so hard on school allergy safety, especially Helen and Peter Blythe, Tanya and Nadim Ednan-Laperouse, my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley and other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, in introducing Amendment 209 this evening. The tragic deaths of Benedict Blythe and Natasha Ednan-Laperouse are a stark reminder of the dangers of anaphylaxis. We have heard other examples of that this evening, including the personal experiences of noble Lords. Amendment 209 seeks to introduce mandatory allergy safety provisions for all schools, including policy adoption, individual healthcare plans, adrenaline auto-injectors and staff training. As stated in Committee, schools have existing duties, under Section 100 of the Children and Families Act 2014, to make arrangements to support pupils with medical conditions including allergy. However, I am pleased to set out the Government’s plans to transform allergy safety in schools and take forward the campaign for Benedict’s law. Before September 2026, we will issue new statutory guidance and we will consult on it imminently. For the first time it will put specific focus on allergy safety alongside other medical conditions. Through statutory guidance, we will require schools to have a dedicated allergy safety policy. This will set out how the school will manage the risks of allergy and anaphylaxis. It will emphasise the importance of whole-school awareness and understanding, grounded in training for all staff. As this training will be set out in statutory guidance, schools will be expected to comply with it. Schools need to be conscious and active in managing the risks of allergy, and they need to take steps to minimise the risk of pupils coming into contact with their known allergens. We will be clear that pupils with allergy must be fully included in the life of the school, with arrangements to support them on exte…
- Two questions before you finish. First, you have not addressed central funding — will the Government back the statutory guidance with funding for spare pens and training? Second, you said schools 'can' purchase AAIs; that is not the same as 'must'. Will you change that wording? Schools must hold spare AAIs — that is the critical point.
I get the impression that the Minister may be about to finish so, before she does, may I just ask her two very specific questions? First, I do not think she has addressed the funding point. If I have missed it, I apologise, but please could she clarify whether the Government intend to back up the statutory guidance they propose by September this year with central funding of those spare pens, training and everything else? Secondly, as I understand it, the Minister said that the draft guidance states that schools “can” purchase AAIs. That is not the same as saying that schools must have spare AAIs. Is the Minister open to changing that wording, or could she just clarify the position? Schools must hold spare AAIs. It is of critical importance, for the reasons we have heard.
- The guidance will say schools *should* hold spares — that is the expectation. On funding: no, there is no centrally provided funding, but two AAIs cost around £150 and we are working with DHSC to keep costs down. Training is included in the statutory guidance, and all schools will be expected to follow it.
On the second point, I said that schools are able to purchase their own spares. Many do so, but I said that our statutory guidance will be clear that we expect schools to do so. The statutory guidance will say that schools should have those spares. On the point about funding, no, I am not saying that there will be centrally provided funding. I was identifying, by talking about both the cost to schools of buying the adrenaline auto-injectors from high street pharmacies, for example, and the ongoing work with the Department of Health and Social Care, how we will ensure that, by schools using their funding, as half have already done, those auto-injectors are available as cheaply and easily as possible. I just reiterate, though, that I did say that training would be part of the statutory guidance, as well as an expectation that that training happens across the school. On that basis, I hope noble Lords will feel reassured and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
- The schools committed to doing this will find the money; those for whom it is not a priority will say they cannot afford it — and that *is* a postcode lottery. The Government found the money for defibrillators. I want to test the opinion of the House.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. We have paid tribute to the campaigners; many of them will be watching these proceedings tonight. I thoroughly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, that the House works best when we have the kind of debate we have had on this, and that, exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said, what matters is not ownership but outcomes. I think we were all moved by the personal examples that have been shared and the family members who are deeply affected by this. I thank the Minister for the assurances she has been able to give about a mandatory policy and training. I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that this is 19 years overdue and that there are undoubtedly significant costs of delay in treatment for pupils. Although the Minister has been able to help on the first point, about spare AAIs—although I wait to see the wording—I know, as we all do, that school budgets are under pressure and that when it comes to government commitments without funding there is a danger that they do not happen. The point is that the schools which are committed to doing this will find the money and those for which this is not a priority—they are not going to match the guidance—will find a way to say that they do not have the money to do it. That is a postcode lottery for our young people.
- This is statutory guidance that all schools must follow unless there are very exceptional reasons not to — the postcode lottery concern is not right.
May I just prolong the cliffhanger slightly? I reiterate that I was clear that this is statutory guidance which all schools should follow unless there are very exceptional reasons why they do not. The point that the noble Baroness makes about the postcode lottery is not right because all schools will be covered by this statutory guidance covering all the issues that I identified.
- I take the point, but without government funding behind a key policy the schools that care will find the money and those that do not will not. The powerful speeches from the Minister's own Back Benches this evening were all in favour. I will test the opinion of the House.
I take the Minister’s point. I understand what she is saying and I know that schools will want to follow statutory guidance. But we have heard the example of the defibrillator rollout: the department was able to find the money. We are talking about money that I think the Government would be able to find. Without government funding behind a key policy, schools will have to think about whether or not they do it. The other point is that we have heard powerful speeches from the Minister’s own Back Benches this evening, all of which have been in favour of this amendment. I think that the way this House works best is to test opinion. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House on this amendment.
The question before us on Amendment 215 is clear: do we support government guidance to tighten the rules, or do we legislate to prohibit smartphones in schools? On these Benches it is the latter. Head teachers want a ban — it sends a clear message to pupils and parents and gives schools a shield against complaints. Only 11% of schools have effective bell-to-bell bans under the current guidance; it is time for legislation. My amendment allows exceptions for medical requirements, sixth-form boarders in the evenings, and allows dumb phones — which lack the addictive algorithms — to remain. We do not support Amendment 216 in the name of Lord Addington: children with SEND should have access to assistive technology, but not via their personal smartphone.The decision before us this evening in relation to Amendment 215 is whether we support the Government’s recent policy shift to tighten the guidance to schools about phones or whether we need to amend the Bill to prohibit the use and possession of smartphones in schools. On these Benches, we are absolutely clear that it is the latter. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Cass, who all bring exceptional expertise in this area, for adding their names to my amendment. I will cover three points in my remarks. First, we need to be absolutely clear what we are trying to achieve with this amendment. As we heard in the debate on my noble friend Lord Nash’s Amendment 94A, on access to social media for under-16s, we need to reset our own and our children’s relationship with smartphones and social media, as smartphones are so often the gateway drug to social media. This is essential given everything we know about the impact of extensive screen time on a child’s ability to learn, to concentrate and to get a good night’s sleep, and on their mental health, as well as the harms that children are exposed to online. Resetting social norms is something our schools can play a crucial part in. We should be in no doubt about the nature of the harms created by having smartphones in schools, and indeed on the bus, to and fro: photos taken without consent and then sexualised via a nudification app, and that are then traded online; exposure to live-streamed content, including children watching a live suicide on the bus home; and, of course, endless potential for distraction from learning. These harms do not happen with dumb phones; they are specific to smartphones. The second point that it is important to stress tonight is that head teachers want a ban on smartphones. This sends a clear message about the harms smartphones can cause, it sends a clear message to parents and, crucially, it will result in consistency across our school…
Smartphones fit in your pocket and carry extraordinary assistive technology — voice systems, screen readers, glucose monitors. As a dyslexic, I use voice-operated systems on my phone every day. If there is another device that does all of this, I am all ears. You can block social media so the phone is used for other purposes. Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater — an absolute ban has downsides we can avoid for pupils who depend on these tools for independence and access to education.This is fairly straightforward. There is a bit of passion being stirred up and a nice pace, so let us not delay too long. The reason I am suggesting that we include smartphones as assistance to those with special educational needs is because smartphones fit in your pocket and are a great way of carrying technology with you. Chris McCausland, who noble Lords have probably seen on “Strictly Come Dancing”, did a lovely little programme showing all the assistance you can get if you are blind that can be loaded on to your phone. I, as a dyslexic, have good voice-operated systems that I can carry with me everywhere and use because they are on my phone. It gives you personal independence. It means that you can operate these systems, and we have only just started to scratch the surface. If there is another personal device that does it, I am all ears. I do not know whether there is another one. You can block social media so the phone itself can be used for other purposes. It is a plastic and metal box that carries technology; it is not the devil’s passport. If we use it correctly, we can change it so that it actually supports and gives independence to a person who otherwise has it restricted from them. I ask all noble Lords in this Chamber: do we want to give independence to those who have disabilities? This amendment would not solve everything, but it would address certain things. It would make sure that pupils could interact with lessons more easily. If they are restricted to a computer in front of them, that may well be better, but, for instance, they will not be able to take notes quite as easily—as in my case—or communicate quite as easily. The Carers Trust has been in touch to say that it does not like the proposal and would like an exemption for some of the people it is dealing with. This is moving very fast—there might be other groups. I appreciate what the noble Baroness is trying to do but let us not be too rigid and throw the baby out with the bathwater. Technolog…
My 11-year-old travels to school daily with a Nokia dumb phone so he can call me — it does not damage his frontal cortex or bring him into contact with predators. Toxic digital platforms are designed for adults and engineered for addiction, fraudsters and predators. A simple device that makes calls and sends texts poses none of those challenges. That is what children should have, and that is why schools need legislative backing to ban smartphones during school hours.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.
- I was contacted by a mother whose diabetic child relies on a phone app to monitor glucose levels — for that child, a smartphone is not a distraction, it is a lifeline. I was also contacted by young carers who said they would not go to school at all without access to a phone. Support Amendment 216 to protect those who genuinely depend on this technology.
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 216. The amendment to ban mobile phones in schools was introduced to safeguard children’s well-being, which is a principle that I wholeheartedly support. But it is therefore imperative that we consider all the ways that a mobile phone can be vital for a child’s well-being and security. I was recently contacted by a mother of a diabetic child who relies on a mobile phone app to monitor her glucose level and manage insulin treatment. Without that device, her child would be at serious risk. For students who depend on assistive technology, whether for communication, medical monitoring or learning support, a mobile phone is not a distraction: it is a lifeline. We must ensure that, in our efforts to protect children from the harms of excessive screen time, we do not inadvertently endanger those who rely on these technologies to participate fully and safely in school life. This amendment provides the necessary clarity and protection for vulnerable students and I urge the House to support it. Incidentally, I was contacted today by young carers who need access to a phone because of their caring roles. One young carer said, “I’m not going to go into school, then, because I’ll be too worried that something might happen to the person I am looking after”. So there are nuances to this issue and one of the ways of dealing with them is by supporting the amendment that was moved by my noble friend Lord Addington. On the general issue, whether it is teachers, parents or grandparents, everybody has concerns about mobile phones in school. It is interesting to remember what the head of Ofsted said. He said that they had played a part in the ongoing scandal of poor school attendance, “whether by chipping away at attention spans and eroding the necessary patience for learning, or by promoting disrespectful attitudes and behaviours”. He also linked mobile phones in schools to the massive increase in permanent exclusions—which, in 2023-24, were up to a re…
The medical-devices exception is already in the amendment. A broader SEN exemption covering nearly 30% of children would create irresistible pressure for parents to seek SEN labels, and the ban would become meaningless. Consider other ways to provide the assistive functionality that may be needed.My Lords, I want to make just one point, following up on the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley. The medical devices exception in the amendment is already provided for. If a more general exception were made for special educational needs—that is already close to 30% of children—the pressure on parents and pupils would be to game this, and the proportion of children with a special needs label would rise to truly stratospheric levels, at which point the phone ban would clearly have no meaning whatever. I urge noble Lords to think about the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, on other ways to provide the assistive functionality that might be needed.
- The medical-devices exception is there. We want SEN children to be independent — happy to work with Lord Addington on that. But a broad SEN exemption risks one in three pupils being allowed phones, which is not what anyone wants. The Minister has the floor.
My Lords, the House is probably keener to hear from the Minister than from me. I am grateful to noble Lords for their remarks. It was clarified that there are exceptions in the amendment around medical devices. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, of course, we want children with special educational needs to be independent and would be very happy to work with the noble Lord to look at that. But I agree completely with my noble friend Lady Spielman that we risk having one in three children in a classroom then being allowed to have a phone, which I know is not what the noble Lord wants either. With that, along with the rest of the House, I would like to hear from the Minister.
I have never taught in a school that allows mobile phones in or on the way to school — including some of the highest-performing non-selective state schools in the country — and I do not think the two facts are unconnected. We do not need phones in schools: they distract and they disturb. A smartphone can be loaded with the tools a pupil needs and handed to them for the day, just as we do with laptops.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.
My daughter is a secondary school teacher: her school has a phone ban and it works — teachers can concentrate on lessons rather than policing devices. Where there is no ban, teachers spend enormous time preventing phone use instead of teaching, and girls in particular face boys sharing upskirt videos and offensive sexual suggestions. On arrival at school, pupils should simply leave their phones in a secure place until the end of the day.My Lords, I support Amendment 215 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and Amendment 216 in the name of my noble friend Lord Addington, who has great experience in matters concerning children with special needs, so I fully support his amendment. I shall speak on Amendment 215 on behalf of my daughter, who is a secondary school teacher and has considerable experience regarding the issue of children using smartphones in schools. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that she is fully in favour of this amendment, like so many other teachers up and down the country. Her school has a phone ban and she tells me that it works really well, as it allows teachers to concentrate on lessons and not spend valuable time policing the use of smartphones during the school day. It works also because it is a great discipline for children to resist the temptation to access their phones during school and lesson time. On the other hand, I have spoken to teachers at education conferences whose schools do not have a ban on smartphones, and they long for that change. They have told me that they spend a great deal of time preventing pupils using phones instead of concentrating on teaching. They express their frustration at how some children cause disruption and are offensive to teachers who tell them to put their phones away. Often, pupils are distracted or bullied and harassed on social media and messaging apps. Girls especially are very intimidated by boys sharing upskirt videos of them and making offensive sexual suggestions. These are some of the reasons why Amendment 215 is asking for a ban on the use of phones by children during school hours. On arrival at school, pupils will simply be asked to leave their phones in a secure place until the end of the school day. In the event of an emergency at home, the school can be contacted and act on the situation appropriately. Pupils can be taken out of class and given back their phone to contact their home if necessary. Actually,…
The Prime Minister has now declared that no one thinks you should have phones in schools and that schools should be phone-free by default — a shift from Ministers two debates ago telling me that 90% of schools already have policies that work. But I have three concerns. Only 15% of children say phones do not affect their lessons in some way — how will recycled guidance change that on the ground? Ofsted inspects only a quarter of schools each year, so some schools will not be seen for another four years after today. And Ofsted's own website says inspectors will 'continue to explore the impact' if a school 'chooses not to follow the guidance' — under what circumstances would not having a bell-to-bell restriction be appropriate? If this passes tonight, come back at ping-pong with something sensitive to the exceptions but that does not hollow out the ban.My Lords, I too added my name to Amendment 215 but, like my noble friend Lord Hampton, I have spoken on this issue quite a lot and anyone who would like to know my view can find it in Hansard—reams of it. However, I want to ask the Minister a few questions about the Government’s current position. I was delighted to hear the Prime Minister declare that no one thinks you should have phones in schools and that schools are expected to be phone-free by default. I am particularly pleased because that is a shift in government messaging: in the last two debates on this issue, I was told that the guidance was sufficient as it is and that 90% of secondary schools already have policies in place that work. I am delighted, but I want to understand what recycling the guidance is going to do to change the experience on the ground for children. Only 15% of children say that phones do not affect their lessons in some way. How will the new guidance help? My second question is around Ofsted inspections. Ofsted inspects about a quarter of schools each year, so each school gets between three and four years between inspections. I would like to hear from the Minister because I am concerned that, if we pass this today and stick with the Government’s guidance, there are some schools that will not be inspected for another four years. We have a problem in the real world. We will have new guidance, but with a system that will be checked at some time in the future. I am worried that many things could happen in that gap. Thirdly, I looked at the government website, where Ofsted’s national director of education wrote: “If a school chooses not to follow the guidance, inspectors will continue to explore the impact of mobile phones on pupils’ behaviour, safety and wellbeing”. Can the Minister state under what circumstances not having a bell-to-bell restriction would be appropriate, given what the national director of education has said? Finally, I hope to give the noble Lord, Lord Addington, a littl…
- I said at Second Reading I was not convinced by a ban. I am now. Two arguments have moved me: phones are a distraction from educational outcomes; and without something legally tougher, teachers and heads say it is very difficult to police — especially when parents become aggressive towards staff who try to enforce a policy. We should support those on the front line and support Amendment 215.
My Lords, when I spoke on this Bill at Second Reading—which seems a million months ago, but perhaps it is not quite that long—I said that I was not convinced about having a ban on phones in schools. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said that I should listen to the arguments. Whether we agree with online content and what children should access from smartphones is, in a way, a separate debate. There are two main arguments tonight which mean that I will support Amendment 215. First, as we have heard, this should be about supporting good educational outcomes. There is no doubt that having phones in schools is a distraction. We should give our young people the best possible opportunity to concentrate and focus for those eight hours in school. Secondly, Ministers have said that there is guidance which strongly encourages schools to have policies that mobile phones should be put away. When I speak to teachers and heads, they say that, without something a bit tougher, it is very difficult to police, particularly when parents or families come in and say that there is an exception or why it should not apply. Sometimes they are even very aggressive towards teachers and heads who say that the pupils should not have phones. We should take the opportunity to support education outcomes and those who have to police this policy on the front line by supporting this amendment.
The first time I spoke in this House was on smartphones in schools, and my niece watching asked afterwards: 'Do you just talk about it and then forget it?' I can now tell her we did not forget — and that it is still a work in progress, but today it moves forward.My Lords, I want to speak to this amendment for two reasons. One is that my name is on it. The second is for nostalgic purposes, because the first time I spoke in this House was in a debate that my noble friend Lady Kidron was leading on smartphones in schools. I stood up and spoke in her shadow—nothing changes, more than a year later. My niece was sitting nearby, observing democracy in action. Afterwards she said, “Well, what happens then? Do you just talk about it and then forget it?” I can tell her that we did not forget it and that it is still a work in progress.
I was on a call this week with three head teachers from very different parts of the country. Their plea: 'Help us — we have different policies, and a small group of vocal and often aggressive parents is distracting us from our core duties.' Give them a clear national rule to stand behind.My Lords, I want to share the experience of schoolteachers, particularly head teachers. I and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, were on a call earlier this week with three head teachers from different parts of the country and from very different economic backgrounds. Their plea was: “You need to help us, because at the moment we have different policies on phones”. One, interestingly, was banning year 7s from having phones but not others. Another was to say: “Put it away. As long as we do not see it, it’s not a problem”. Others have pouches. A lot of their time is being taken up by a small group of vocal and often aggressive parents who demand that their children have their phones at school. Those head teachers are being distracted from their core duties to deal with this, and they were pleading with us, particularly with this vote tonight, to send a clear message to the Government that head teachers want to teach children rather than police smartphones. The other thing I want to share is about the harms. We have talked a lot about social media, but often phones in schools lead to further bullying. We all saw a few years back the craze of happy slapping, where young people in playgrounds came behind others and slapped them, and the footage would be used and shared. There is one other thing I want to share that is very personal. When one of my sons first started at a school in Rotherham, he was very keen to fit in—because we are from Sheffield—and he wanted to make friends. Unfortunately, a small group of so-called friends followed him into a toilet a few moments after he had gone in and, while he was sat on the toilet, they kicked the door in and took footage of him on the toilet. He did not tell me or the family. I got a phone call from a local community centre a week or two later to say, “Shaf, we are horrified by what we’ve seen. We’ve seen footage of your son. He didn’t know what to do, he couldn’t get up, and these kids were laughing. We saw it, and we think you…
I support the principle of Amendment 215, but I share the concern about enforcement. School rules on homework and fighting are not always followed either. The amendment needs to be enforceable in practice — good intention alone is not enough.My Lords, very briefly, it will come as no surprise that, when I was going to school, I did not have a smartphone, just like many of you here this evening, probably; we did not have that opportunity. I fully support the principle of Amendment 215. I find a difficulty, though—this is a follow-up to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan—on the policing of this issue in schools. Doing your homework is a requirement at school; not every kid does it. Bullying and fighting in the playground are not allowed, but it still happens. I fully appreciate that the son of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, is not allowed a smartphone, but not every young person is accommodating like that: not every young person has the respect for their parents, let alone for their teachers. It is okay making these laws, but, unless we have some type of policing and enforcement, it will not be of any benefit, because you are going to punish the people who willingly give up their phone when going into school. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, says, “It is okay, they will simply be asked to leave their phone at the door”, but they will not all leave their phone at the door. Some will have a phone hidden. How do we police and manage it? That is my serious question, because I absolutely know that not every young person will willingly do it. What do you do? Are you going to criminalise teachers for not taking the phones? Are you going to criminalise parents for allowing children to go to school with their phones? It is not that simple. I fully support the principle of the amendment. Let me be clear: I wish phones had never been allowed in school. But the management, policing and enforcement of this is something totally different and it is not dealt with in this amendment or anywhere that I can see in this legislation. I am willing to support this amendment, by the way, but it needs a lot more doing to it before it is finished. Does the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, think that, if those kids had be…
The amendment underestimates the operational difficulties. However, it would help if the Government would commit: in the light of evidence from Australia, Spain and others, are they open to statutory legislation if non-statutory guidance still proves insufficient?My Lords, for precisely the reasons outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, I have great suspicions about this amendment. It underestimates the operational difficulties of what is proposed, not least because the catchment age of this Chamber does not really allow us fully to experience or understand them. Therefore, I agree with the Government’s contention not to go straight to a statutory measure. However, it would help us if the Government made it plain, in the light of the experience in Australia—which we will be able to estimate in the next few months—Spain and so on, and of the experience of non-statutory guidance, whether they are open to considering statutory legislation somewhere down the line. It would be helpful if we understood that we have an open mind on this.
Schools that implement a clear smartphone policy — no phones brought in, or locked pouches, or confiscation on arrival — find they are all highly effective at improving behaviour and focus. The Government's proposed non-statutory guidance is a move from their previous position, but those of us who work in schools know guidance alone is not enough.I rise to support this amendment. The Government have, as I understand it, proposed non-statutory guidance that all schools should prohibit smartphone use by pupils in schools. This is indeed a move from their previous position, that most schools are already doing this and thus a firm rule is unnecessary. However, those of us who actually work in schools know that some schools do have a strict, clear smartphone policy which is actually effective. For instance, in my patch, students either cannot bring them with them, or they are taken off them when they arrive and locked away, or they have to go into a locked pouch. We are experimenting with all three to see which is the most effective, but I can say that they have all been highly effective in improving the behaviour and focus of students. On the point about enforcement, if a smartphone is seen, it is confiscated for a long time. This is a firm and clear policy, and it is working. However, many schools, possibly most, have much a looser policy, rather along the lines of the Government’s now proposed non-statutory guidance: a weak and ineffective policy allowing children to use them in the loos and in the corridors, out of sight. I do wish sometimes that the Government would just admit they got it wrong. When I was taking legislation through your Lordships’ House—five Acts as a Schools Minister—I took many amendments from Opposition Benches because they were sensible and I agreed with them. Clearly, the Government have moved on this; they accept they were wrong, but they will not admit it. They should go the whole way, and rather than producing some wishy-washy non-statutory “should” guidance, they should accept a clear rule or duty, as in Amendment 215. Teachers want it: they want a clear, firm rule consistently applied across all schools, as do parents, particularly those with children in different schools, who can find different policies very confusing. I support this amendment because it is clear, strong and effe…
Ian Russell, the father of Molly Russell, said on BBC television in 2016 that a total ban on smartphones would be wrong — the greatest danger is not the phone itself but social media and its algorithms. Children can be banned from phones at school and still log on to social media the moment they get home. The solution requires careful thought about both smartphones and social media together.My Lords, will you allow me to introduce another voice—a voice that is not of this House? On 18 January 2016, Ian Russell, the father of Molly Russell, who took her own life aged 14, said on BBC television that a total ban of smartphones would be wrong. Why? Because he saw that the greatest danger is not mobile phones or smartphones, but social media. You can ban phones from school, but then the children go home and log on to social media. Social media causes far greater damage because of the algorithms used. Ian Russell was clearly of the view that what is needed is careful thought and for those who know the dangers of both, and the complications involved, to make recommendations to the Government on how to tackle the use of smartphones in schools and the use of social media because of the damage it is causing all our children. I do not think banning mobile phones on its own will deal with the real danger of social media algorithms.
- Mobile phones have no place in schools — we have always been clear on that. The old guidance inherited from the previous Government did not deliver the clarity or consistency that schools need. On 19 January we published strengthened guidance: all schools should be mobile phone-free environments by default for the entire school day, including lessons, breaks, lunchtime and the loos. Ofsted will check phone policy on every inspection for the first time. We are also launching a three-month consultation — announced by the Science and Innovation Secretary — on improving children's relationship with smartphones and social media, including whether the guidance should be placed on a statutory footing. But Amendment 215 has a problem: an overly strict definition of 'possession' could make sealed pouches — which already work well — non-compliant, and we should not undermine what works.
My Lords, the Government recognise concerns about the impact of mobile phones in schools, including the distraction from learning and the wider effects on children’s well-being. For this reason, we have always been clear that mobile phones have no place in schools. It was clear from the examples given by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and the noble Lord, Lord Nash, that schools can deliver this. Research from the Children’s Commissioner shows that the overwhelming majority of schools already have policies in place that limit or restrict the use of mobile phones during the school day. However, it is also clear that the old mobile phones in schools guidance inherited from the previous Government did not deliver the clarity or consistency that schools need to implement mobile phone-free schools. Amendment 215 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, requires schools in England to prohibit the use and possession of smartphones during the school day. As I say, the vast majority of schools already have policies in place that restrict access to mobile phones. The problem, therefore, is one of clarifying the guidance and enforcing those policies. That is why we have acted to address both. On Monday 19 January we published strengthened guidance which is clear that all schools should be mobile phone-free environments by default for the entire school day and pupils should not have access to their devices. That includes lessons, time between lessons, break times, lunchtime and in the loos. Not only does the strengthened guidance remove any ambiguity as to what effective prohibition of mobile phones looks like, but it includes practical, real-world case studies, demonstrating how schools are successfully implementing and sustaining these policies. We know that schools need help. Where they do, they can get one-to-one support from the DfE’s attendance and behaviour hub lead schools, spread across all regions of the country, that are already effectively implementing mob…
- The Minister says phones have no place in schools and wants a national reset. So do we — and that is precisely why we need the amendment. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
My Lords, the Minister says that phones have no place in schools and that the Government want a national reset. I say that we need our amendment. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
- When a child is permanently excluded, early intervention has already failed. Amendment 217 would guarantee every permanently excluded child a proper local authority needs assessment — schools notify the LA already, but a systematic assessment is not consistent. Amendment 218 addresses the anxiety of parents and heads about having back in their classroom a child who has committed serious violence or sexual assault — particularly important given that Clauses 54 to 56 strengthen the LA's power to require academies to accept a child via a managed move. Amendment 219 would establish a presumption against mainstream reinstatement after a second permanent exclusion: good evidence shows these children are more likely to have their needs met in high-quality alternative provision. We too rarely speak with equal clarity about the 30 other pupils in the classroom whose learning is disrupted.
My Lords, this group of amendments returns to the issue of balancing the rights of children who are excluded from school with those of other children and staff in the classroom. All three of my amendments were tabled in Committee. Before I speak to them, I want to acknowledge the very positive evaluation of the impact of the behaviour hubs programme that was just published, and I thank all those involved. In Committee, the Minister referred to the statutory Working Together guidance, which says that the local authority and partners should identify problems and unmet needs, including for children facing multiple suspensions or permanent exclusion from school. She referred again to the changes that the Government are making to local authority children’s services with a greater proposed emphasis on early help. Of course, this is how all of us would hope that the system would work but, by definition, when a child is permanently excluded, that early intervention has not achieved its goals. To take my amendments in reverse order, Amendment 219 would make it clear that there is a presumption against reinstatement in a mainstream school after a child has been permanently excluded twice. As my noble friend Lady Spielman said in Committee, there is good evidence that these children do not go on to thrive in mainstream and are more likely to have their needs met through high-quality alternative provision. We all know that there is not enough of this currently, but that is for a different debate. Perhaps the forthcoming schools White Paper will address it. However, can the Minister confirm whether the Government plan to make it clear in future updates of the suspension and exclusions guidance that if a child has twice been excluded from a mainstream school, there is a presumption against placing them in another one? My Amendment 218 reflects the anxieties that many parents and head teachers have about having a child in their classroom who has committed serious violence or sexua…
Today is the one-year anniversary of 15-year-old Harvey Willgoose being stabbed at school in Sheffield, by a perpetrator with 130 recorded incidents of concern including carrying weapons. Teachers felt unable to act, and the trust is now reviewing 'missed opportunities'. When a school excludes a violent pupil and a review panel reinstates them, who is responsible when the next victim arrives? The reforms in this Bill do not address accountability for reinstatement panels; Amendment 218 would.My Lords, one year ago today, on 3 February 2025, 15 year-old Harvey Willgoose was tragically stabbed in the heart at All Saints Catholic High School in Sheffield. It happened in the school courtyard in the lunch break, and the perpetrator was Mohammed Umar Khan. An independent review has been commissioned by the school’s trust on what it calls “missed opportunities” and “too many red flags” about Mohammed Khan’s previous behaviour. Khan’s record showed around 130 incidents of concern relating to violence, anger issues and even carrying weapons, yet somehow teachers did not feel able to handle that. Allegedly—the trust is looking into this—some teachers said that they raised the alarm but were ignored or it was pushed away from them. It is important that we note that teachers should never be frightened to intervene for whatever reason by asserting adult authority. One problem we have to address is making sure that we do not in any way send a message that teachers cannot have the tools that they need to deal with challenging behaviour in schools. It is therefore important that suspension and permanent exclusions are part of the tools that reinforce and deter serious misconduct across schools, signal that certain behaviours have severe consequences and allow boundaries to exist and be reinforced. That is beneficial to all pupils as well as staff. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that sometimes we forget those children who are sitting there and are victims of the misbehaving or violent child. It is for that reason that I have added my name to Amendment 217, which would require local authorities to undertake an assessment of the needs of any permanently excluded child. I am sure that one reason many head teachers are nervous about permanent exclusion is that they do not want that to be the end of the educational road for the child and they do not want the child to disappear. It is very important that we do not allow that to happen. Amendment 218, which prob…
- Almost 10,900 children were permanently excluded in England in 2023–24, with nearly four in ten for persistent disruptive behaviour. Exclusions disproportionately affect the most vulnerable — children with SEND, those eligible for free school meals, those in care. Without careful support, exclusion sets a child on a path to disengagement and criminal justice involvement. Amendment 217 would help ensure that path is interrupted.
Children have a right to learn, and teachers have a right to teach. Permanent exclusion is far more than a disciplinary measure; it is a pivotal moment that can shape a child’s future. Consider the 2023-24 academic year, when almost 10,900 children were permanently excluded in England, with nearly four in 10 due to persistent disruptive behaviour. Without careful support, these exclusions can set children on a path of disengagement, low attainment and tragically increased involvement with the criminal justice system. We know that exclusions disproportionately affect the most vulnerable. Children eligible for free school meals or with special education needs are far more likely to be excluded, highlighting the urgent need for support that is tailored rather than one size fits all. All too often, excluded children simply fall out of the system, their potential left unrealised. This amendment would require local authorities to carry out a formal needs assessment, ensuring that support is timely, targeted and responsive. Professionals will be able to identify barriers to learning, social or emotional challenges and offer suggestions for appropriate interventions, whether that be reintegration into another school, alternative provision or targeted mental health and well-being support. Whichever route this intervention follows, it is essential, as evidence shows that without such structured intervention excluded children face long-term education disadvantage and reduced life chances. This is not mere bureaucracy; it is a practical, evidence-informed measure, designed to safeguard children and give them a chance to succeed. It aligns with the Government’s commitment to exclusion and equality of opportunity, recognising that every child has value, talent and potential. It is our collective responsibility to provide a safety net for those most at risk. I urge noble Lords to support this amendment, not as a mere procedural formality but as a moral and educational imperative.…
- Permanently excluded children who are not folded into some support system quickly are lost to crime or worse — anyone who has seen the documentary 'Idris Elba: Our Knife Crime Crisis' knows that. Amendment 217 is simple and could save young lives.
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.
- Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 already places a duty on local authorities to assess children in need, and permanently excluded children are likely to fall within that duty. The Government's wider reforms — including changes to local authority children's services and an emphasis on early help — are the right vehicle, not new primary legislation that could narrow Section 17 or create gaps. We trust head teachers to use professional judgment on exclusion, and Clauses 54 to 56 protect that right while strengthening the managed-move system.
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 wo…
- These are slightly disappointing remarks, and the Government's reforms are doing an awful lot of heavy lifting. Amendment 217 is not about narrowing Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 — it is about saying these children are children in need almost by definition, so let us look at it systematically. I hope the reforms deliver. I withdraw.
I thank the Minister for those remarks. They are slightly disappointing, and certainly the Government’s reforms are doing an awful lot of heavy lifting. I am not going to press my amendments, but it is with a heavy heart, particularly in relation to Amendment 217. This is not about narrowing the scope of Section 17 of the 1989 Act; it is about saying that these children are children in need, almost by definition, so let us make sure we look at it systematically. But I hope that the Government’s reforms will work the miracle that the Minister believes they will. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 217.
Amendment 221 would introduce a statutory requirement for Ministers to prepare and publish a child's rights impact assessment — a CRIA — on any proposed legislation, policy, budgetary or other strategic decision related to children's well-being, social care or education, and to publish periodic reports on CRIA quality. Wales and Scotland already do this. The Covid-19 inquiry recommended it. The Government's own ministers have called the UNCRC 'an essential framework'. If children's rights are truly at the centre of policy-making, put that commitment in the law.My Lords, I thank my fellow signatories to Amendment 221, those who supported a similar amendment in Committee, and the Children’s Rights Alliance for England, UNICEF UK and the NSPCC for their assistance. I also thank Minister MacAlister for a helpful meeting to discuss it. In a nutshell, the amendment would introduce a statutory requirement for Ministers to prepare and publish a child’s rights impact assessment—CRIA—on any proposed legislation, policy, budgetary or other strategic decision related to children’s well-being, social care or education, and to publish periodic reports on the steps taken to ensure that CRIAs are being carried out to a high standard. I am grateful too to my noble friend Lady Blower, who moved this and a related children’s rights amendment in Committee, on my behalf. I am bringing back this one amendment, minus a reference to operational decisions—in response to my noble friend the Minister’s comments in Committee—as a practical and proportionate way to ensure a children’s rights perspective on the issues covered by the Bill. Crucially, since Committee, the report of module 2 of the Covid inquiry has recommended that “the UK Government should introduce legislation to place child rights impact assessments on a statutory footing in England”. This was in response to the inquiry’s finding that children’s needs and rights were not properly considered or understood by the Government during the pandemic, and its conclusion, based on extensive evidence, that the use of CRIAs could have guided better outcomes for children during the pandemic. In Committee, my noble friend the Minister accepted that CRIAs offered policymakers a “valuable tool”, but argued that they should be “effective and proportionate”, and that voluntary rather than statutory CRIAs would be more manageable and less challenging. But experience, including that of the pandemic, suggested that a voluntary approach is not working. Only a small number have been undertaken across gover…
Ministers have described children's rights as a 'shared goal' and the UNCRC as 'an essential framework'. If that is true, there is every reason to support a statutory CRIA obligation. The Government's stated goal and the amendment's goal are aligned — the only question is whether to trust that alignment without the law requiring it.My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 221, cogently moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to place child’s rights impact assessments on a statutory basis for the purposes referred to in her amendment. In Committee, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, referred to the “shared goal of putting children’s rights at the very centre of policy-making”.—[Official Report, 18/9/25; col. 2429.] Last week, in answer to a question by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, described the UNCRC as “an essential framework which will guide both Ministers and officials in drawing up the appropriate policies”.—[Official Report, 27/1/26; col. 764.] There is therefore no doubt about the Government’s stated intentions and commitment, but those make it only more difficult to understand why there has been a reluctance to act on the recommendations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, as long ago as 2023, for stronger national frameworks with greater efforts to embed child rights into law by full incorporation. That would be the best way to maintain and raise standards, enhance accountability, and show that children’s rights are regarded as truly important and should have a strong influence on decision-making.
Full incorporation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is the gold standard. Tonight we are asking only for one important part — mandatory CRIAs. Wales and Scotland have led the way. England should follow.My Lords, I too have added my name to this important amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and indeed with the late great Judge Munby, that a full incorporation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is the gold standard to which many of us campaigners have long aspired. Tonight, however, we are talking about just one little part of it—a very important part. Devolution has often allowed the devolved nations and regions to do something different and more adventurous—to show the way. Wales and Scotland have done just that, particularly in relation to children. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said in her opening speech, both Wales and Scotland already have a mandatory system of child’s rights impact assessments. As a resident of Wales, I will say a little more about how it works there, though I also congratulate Scotland on its approach. Over the years, in discussion with former Minister Edward Timpson and former Minister Zahawi, sometimes accompanied by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, if I remember correctly, I have promoted CRIAs for the sake not only of the children themselves but of effective and efficient government. In similar conversations today, I could have now called in aid the fact that, in Wales, research has shown that CRIAs, where properly applied, result in better attention to children’s rights under the UNCRC and better outcomes for children. Crucially, in the interests of efficient government, they help to prevent complex and expensive litigation later when things go wrong. These proactive and preventive measures can ensure that we get it right first time; surely, that is what we all aspire to do in making policy. The recent debate on the regular report of the Children’s Commissioner for Wales showed how deeply the language of children’s rights has permeated parliamentary scrutiny and debate in the Senedd. Over 250 CRIAs have already been carried out, covering multiple areas. They have not been found to be disproport…
We are committed to children's rights and the UNCRC. Officials already work to assess impacts on children in policy development, and we are upskilling officials in this area. The Covid inquiry's recommendation on CRIAs will receive a formal response. But a statutory CRIA duty as drafted would extend to every ministerial decision with any impact on children, adding legal process that could slow decision-making without improving outcomes. We will not support Amendment 221.My Lords, Amendment 221, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lister, would place a duty on Ministers and officials to prepare and publish a child rights impact assessment, or CRIA, in relation to all relevant legislation, policy and budget development which will impact on children’s well-being, social care or education prior to the decision being taken. I restate this Government’s continued commitment to upholding children’s rights and the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. We continue to work closely with key stakeholders that advocate for the rights of children. As stated in Committee, members of the department meet quarterly with representatives from children’s rights charities, providing Ministers and officials with opportunities to hear directly from experts in the sector, helping us to put children’s rights at the heart of policy-making. We agree that impacts on children should be carefully assessed as part of policy-making; however, such an amendment is unnecessary, as upon ratifying the UNCRC in 1991, the UK Government made a commitment to give due regard to the UNCRC when making new policy and legislation. Compliance is demonstrated through the periodic reporting process every five years when the Government report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child on progress the UK has made in upholding children’s rights. To pick up on the points about devolved Governments, powerfully made by different contributors—the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, clearly wanted to speak about Wales—as we say, these are devolved matters. Devolved Administrations are free to develop their approach to children’s rights and we are confident that the UK Government’s approach fulfils our duties under the UNCRC. This Government are committed to being child-centred and will continue to put children at the heart of our decision-making. We will continue to assess the impact of the devolved Governments’ changes, including…
- I am disappointed. The very stakeholders who meet quarterly with this Government — children's rights charities — are behind this amendment precisely because they do not think what happens at present is sufficient. Here was an opportunity to act on the Covid inquiry's recommendation now, not at some future point. I withdraw, but I will return.
My Lords, I thank those who spoke in support of the amendment. I am disappointed with my noble friend’s response, although I welcome what she said about upskilling officials. I hope that that will be done in conjunction with the stakeholders to whom she referred, with whom the Government have had regular meetings, because those very stakeholders are behind this amendment, and they clearly do not think that what happens at present is sufficient. I am disappointed that it is not possible to accept the recommendation of the Covid inquiry now. I am glad, obviously, that it will have to be looked at and there will be a formal response, but here was an opportunity to do something about it. These Bills do not come along that often, so, even if the Government do accept the Covid inquiry’s recommendation for statutory CRIAs, when will that become law? The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child regularly recommends that we produce CRIAs, so, clearly, it does not think we are sufficiently meeting the requirements of the UN convention. It is simply not enough just to have signed up to the convention. But it is late, and I know people want to get home—I do—and, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
- The Covid-19 pandemic exposed and worsened education inequalities: Amendment 222 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on implementing a national tutoring guarantee. High-quality tutoring is one of the most effective ways to help disadvantaged pupils catch up. Without targeted support, the gaps are long-term. The national tutoring programme has ended — the guarantee it provided should not.
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 222 in my name. This would require the Secretary of State to publish a report outlining the steps needed to introduce a national tutoring guarantee and to begin implementing its recommendations. I brought this recommendation forward because the Covid-19 pandemic exposed and worsened education inequalities. Many pupils, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, were left behind. Without targeted support, these gap risks become long term, limiting life chances and future opportunities. High-quality tutoring has been shown to be one of the most effective ways to help pupils catch up. That is why the national tutoring programme has played such an important role since 2020. In the 2023-24 academic year alone, the programme delivered 1.5 million courses and reached approximately 1.7 million pupils across England. Around 45% of these pupils were eligible for free school meals and 28% had special educational needs. These figures show that the programme has successfully targeted some of the pupils who need it most. However, they also highlight that, despite this reach, the support remains temporary and unevenly guaranteed. That is why a national tutoring guarantee is so important. My amendment would require the Secretary State to set out a clear plan for it and begin implementing it without delay. It would ensure that access to high-quality tutoring is equitable, consistent and based on evidence rather than dependent on local decisions or temporary funding. A national tutoring guarantee would mean that no child’s opportunity to catch up is determined by postcode or parental resources. It would demonstrate that the Government take seriously their responsibility to support pupils at risk of falling behind. We know that gaps in learning can have lasting consequences that affect exam results, life chances and employment prospects, making this not merely an educational measure but a vital investment for our young people. For these reaso…
Amendment 243E would guarantee every 16 to 18 year-old who wants an apprenticeship a place on one. Three times as many people apply for apprenticeships as there are places. An apprenticeship guarantee would improve skills supply — particularly important as the Government curbs immigration — and improve the lives of young people who struggle with academic education. This deserves more than sympathy.My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 243E, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Layard. It is late, and I promise to be brief. In Committee, a cross-party group of Peers spoke in support of an amendment that would have guaranteed a place on an apprenticeship to every 16 to 18 year-old who wanted it. Such a guarantee would have improved the supply of skills in this country at a time when they are needed more than ever, not least because of the Government’s success in curbing immigration. It would have enhanced growth and, more important still, improved the lives of young people who struggle with the academic education system. Sadly, the Government were unable to support the amendment at that time. However, I was grateful to the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, for the positive spirit in which she responded. Since that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Layard, and I have had constructive meetings with DWP officials. We have therefore sought to soften the amendment to bring it into line with what Ministers and officials have said to us. We are mindful that resources are finite, and the noble Lord, Lord Layard, and I have redrafted the original amendment to take this into account. All we are asking now is for the Government to endorse the principle that they will prioritise the provision of sufficient apprenticeships for qualified 16 to 18 year-olds as soon as resources permit. In effect, we are asking for the Government to sign up to the principle of a guarantee, not to its immediate delivery. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Layard, is unable to be here today due to a long-standing engagement, but he has asked me to make three very short points. First, by the age of 18, one in three of our young people have ceased to receive any education or training. This proportion is much higher than in any comparable competitor country and is terrible for our productivity and the prospects of these young people. Secondly, it is not these young people’s fault. M…
Amendment 241 would require the Secretary of State to commission and publish a report on the educational attainment of children with a parent in prison. This is focused, proportionate and costs nothing — it simply demands that we understand the scale of the problem before us. Children with a parent in prison are among the most vulnerable in our school system and we barely acknowledge them.My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 241 in my name. It would require the Secretary of State to commission and publish a report on the educational attainment of school-aged children with a parent in prison. This is a focused and proportionate amendment. It does not prescribe policy. It does not require new programmes or spending. But it does seek to ensure that we understand properly the scale and nature of the problem before us. During the progress of this Bill, there has been extensive discussion about vulnerable children, about those facing disadvantages and about the barriers that prevent too many pupils in our schools from fulfilling their academic potential. Children with a parent in prison are one such group. They are often invisible in our data, our systems and our schools. I should make the House aware of my interest as a trustee of the national charity, Children Heard and Seen, which supports children and families impacted by parental imprisonment in their own community. It is estimated that hundreds of thousands of children in England experience parental imprisonment at some point during their childhood. Evidence suggests that these children are more likely to experience disrupted schooling, lower educational attainment, poorer attendance and higher levels of emotional and behavioural difficulties. Despite this, there is no comprehensive national assessment of how parental imprisonment affects educational outcomes, nor a clear understanding of what interventions within the school system work best in mitigating these harms. Without this data, schools may struggle to identify affected pupils, local authorities may fail to plan appropriate support and national policy risks overlooking a group of children who face significant but often hidden disadvantages. This amendment simply seeks to address that gap. It would require the Secretary of State, within six months of Royal Assent, to commission a report on the educational attainment of school-age children with…
Amendment 243 would make statutory the existing government guidance that new school buildings must be net zero in operation and adapted to 2 degrees of warming, and would require a safe and resilient schools plan for existing buildings. The Department for Education does not even hold data on lost learning time due to flooding. Storm Chandra in late January caused 80 schools to close or partially close. This gap in both ambition and data is unacceptable.My Lords, my Amendment 243 deals with climate mitigation and adaptation. It would make statutory existing government guidance that new school buildings must be both net zero in operation and adapted to 2 degrees of warming, and would require the Government to produce a safe and resilient schools plan, laying out how existing school buildings would meet these targets. One issue is that the Government do not seem to know the scale of the problem—for instance, the department does not hold information about the amount of lost learning time due to flooding. We have done a bit of research on the impact of extreme weather recently. Storm Chandra in late January caused 80 schools to close or partially close in Devon, Dorset and Somerset. Over 400 schools closed in Northern Ireland on 27 January due to weather, and Storm Goretti caused at least 278 schools in northern Scotland to close. That adds up to hundreds of lost school days across the UK. Of course we expect some of this—we cannot get around the snow—but my point is that weather events are increasing, and we could risk losing a lot of learning days, not to mention the soggy books and school equipment that are left behind. The UK has no statutory reporting system, and what data exists is only at the local authority level; it is primarily for parents, not for anything strategic. Can the Minister commit that the department will start to track this centrally so that we have some kind of usable data? The wider issue is that we lack a plan for how to deal with what is coming down the road. Everyone knows that climate change is getting worse, and we need a climate adaptation plan for schools. It needs to come from central government, otherwise we risk creating a multitiered system, where some schools do better and some do not. Probably, almost inevitably, it will be the poorest schools that end up being closed when there is a bad flooding event. We have a template to follow; a few years ago, the Mayor of London commissioned…
Amendment 243A would stop safeguarding policies being misused for political purposes. A Labour MP was no-platformed at a secondary school on the grounds that his support for Israel posed a safeguarding risk to children — the local NEU branch called it 'a win for safeguarding'. That is an abuse of the concept that brings real safeguarding into disrepute. Schools should not be able to use safeguarding as a pretext to shut down political speech.My Lords, in speaking to my Amendment 243A, I declare my interests as the director of the Free Speech Union and a member of the Knowledge Schools Trust. The amendment would stop safeguarding policies and procedures in schools being misused for political purposes, a prime example being the recent cancellation of a talk by the Labour MP Damien Egan at a secondary school in his Bristol constituency, on the grounds that allowing a vice-chair of the Labour Friends of Israel to speak posed a safeguarding risk to children. The Bristol branch of the National Education Union said on its Facebook page, after Mr Egan was no-platformed: “We celebrate this cancellation as a win for safeguarding”. In another Facebook post, the Bristol branch of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign also described Mr Egan’s ban as a win for safeguarding. At the Free Speech Union, we have come across numerous examples of school safeguarding policies being weaponised by political activists to silence their opponents, whether visiting speakers or members of staff. For instance, the Free Speech Union recently took on the case of a teacher in Henley who was referred to the local authority designated officer—LADO, the official in charge of investigating safeguarding concerns—because he showed his A-level politics class some Trump campaign videos from the 2024 presidential election. The teacher was accused of causing his A-level students, aged 17 and 18, “emotional harm”. In one document, local officials in charge of child protection suggested that the showing of the Trump campaign videos could amount to a “hate crime”. Incidentally, he also showed the students in his A-level politics class some of Kamala Harris’s campaign videos, but those did not raise any safeguarding concerns. In another Free Speech Union case, a teacher at a primary school in Tower Hamlets was sacked and referred to his local child protection board after telling off some Muslim boys for washing their feet in the sinks in the boys’ lavat…
- We are in danger of abandoning an entire generation of young people who do not follow the university route. Apprenticeship places at levels 3 and 4 — exactly where 16 to 18 year-olds without prior qualifications start — are shrinking while places at levels 5 and 6 expand. Amendment 243B would address that paradox.
My Lords, I will speak to my other amendment in this group, Amendment 243B, but I will just add a few words on Amendment 243E, following on from my noble friend Lady Tyler’s comments. We are in danger of abandoning an entire generation of young people who do not follow the traditional university route. While apprenticeship places at levels 5 and 6 continue to expand, opportunities at levels 3 and 4 are shrinking. This surely is a cruel paradox. Young people who have university degrees will be able to access higher-level apprenticeships. Meanwhile, those who most need levels 3 and 4 to begin their careers—16 to 18 year-olds without prior qualifications—are left stranded. These young people are not lacking in ambition or ability. They simply seek a different path—one that is rooted in practical skills and real-world experience. Yet we are closing the doors in their faces at the very moment that they are ready to step through them. We saw at first hand the transformative power of apprenticeships for young people who thrive outside traditional academic settings. This amendment would ensure that, as we develop apprenticeship policy, we do not forget the young people who need these opportunities the most. It is about fairness, opening pathways, and giving every young person, regardless of whether they go to a university, a genuine chance to build a meaningful future. I urge the House to support it. On my Amendment 243B, we know that schools are not VAT-rated, and that sixth forms in schools are not VAT-rated. Then along came the academisation of our schools, and a very clever move was made by the noble Lord, Lord Gove—I hope I am not using his name in vain; he is not here—who saw a very quick way to enable sixth forms to become part of multi-academy trusts. So, guess what? The sixth forms that chose to go into a multi-academy trust were not VAT-rated. Those poor sixth forms who decided to stay on their own and not be swallowed up by a multi-academy trust are VAT-ed: they…
- On Amendment 222: schools are best placed to choose their approach, and tutoring is one option available through pupil premium. The national tutoring programme has ended but its evidence and guidance remain available. On the apprenticeship, climate, free-speech and attainment amendments: the Government shares the concerns raised but does not believe primary legislation is the appropriate vehicle — we will not be accepting these amendments.
My Lords, I think I win the prize tonight for the most wide-ranging set of amendments that could possibly come together in one group. I turn first to Amendment 222, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I appreciate the noble Lord’s arguments, which were also put forward in Committee. I thank him for raising them again. However, my view on this remains the same: schools are best placed to understand the needs of their pupils and should be able to choose from a range of options to best suit those needs, with tutoring being one option. Although the national tutoring programme has ended, schools can continue to provide tutoring through the use of funds such as pupil premium, which can be used to support the disadvantaged pupils identified in this proposed amendment. Guidance based on evidence gathered through the programme is available to support schools to deliver tutoring. In addition, the noble Lord may be aware that on 26 January the Department for Education announced plans to co-create AI tutoring tools with teachers and leading tech companies. This programme will develop and robustly test our AI tutoring tools so they are safe and work for pupils, including the most disadvantaged, and school staff to complement high-quality, face-to-face teaching. We need to have confidence that schools are best able to go forward and use their resources appropriately. On Amendment 241, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mott, I fully appreciate the noble Lord’s concerns about the educational attainment of children with a parent in prison. We had a good discussion in Committee and we have committed to identifying and supporting all children affected by parental imprisonment. We welcome the intent of this amendment and assure the noble Lord that the Department for Education is working closely with the Ministry of Justice to determine how we can best identify all children affected, not just those of school age, sensitively and ensure that they get support to enable them to thrive. I t…
Amendment 227 would guarantee every pupil in England access to a minimum whitelist of safe, approved software tools and websites, regardless of which school they attend. Over the past six months I have worked with Cambridge and the Raspberry Pi Foundation to develop a new level 3 qualification in data science and AI — not just for future computer scientists, but for the lawyers, economists and doctors of tomorrow. The amendment is not about stopping edtech; it is about ensuring a floor of access so that no child is left behind by an unlucky school choice.My Lords, Amendment 227 is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. We started with AI during Oral Questions what is now yesterday afternoon. We considered the use of AAI in the debate on Amendment 209 yesterday evening. We are now back with AI within edtech. Amendment 227 is about ensuring that a minimum level of provision of software tools, including websites, is available to every pupil in England, regardless of the school they attend. Over the last six months, I have worked with Professor Peyton Jones from the University of Cambridge and the Raspberry Pi Foundation to develop proposals for a level 3 qualification in data science and AI. This is being done in consultation with the relevant team in the Department for Education. Importantly, this level 3 qualification would not be just for those sixth-formers who will go on to read computer science at university but, first and foremost, for the professionals of the future, such as lawyers, economists and doctors. The aim is to give those pupils in the final two years of school sufficient knowledge and experience of up-to-date AI to enable them to use it properly in their time at university and at the start of their professional careers. If the UK is to have a workforce ready to take advantage of the opportunities that AI offers, AI education needs to begin at school. I know that His Majesty’s Government recognise this. They have just published a set of standards which generative AI products should meet to be considered safe for users in educational settings. However, these are intended mainly for edtech developers and suppliers to schools and colleges, not schoolteachers and administrators. During a workshop organised by the Raspberry Pi Foundation last November, I met teachers from all types of schools who were keen to learn more about a level 3 qualification in data science and AI. I soon discovered that IT departments in many schools today have a strict, if misguided, interpretation of the Online…
- Amendments 238 to 240 are about safety, accountability and children's data in edtech. The Secretary of State recently said we are in 'a technology revolution' and the world of five years ago is 'gone forever'. That uncritical view is dangerous. Schools are being expected to navigate rapid change without adequate frameworks. Amendment 238 would require a statutory certification scheme so that edtech tools used in schools are demonstrably safe and educationally effective. Amendment 239 does the same for filtering and monitoring products. Amendment 240 requires the ICO to produce an edtech code of practice for children's data — children's data in schools is not adequately protected right now.
My Lords, Amendments 238 to 240 are in my name and those of my noble friends Lady Cass and Lord Russell. I support Amendment 227 in the name of my noble friend Lord Tarassenko. I start by thanking the Minister and her officials for the engagement that we have had since Committee. These amendments, unlike in the previous grouping, are all about a single thing: the uses of technology in our schools. I feel that they are long overdue; we have seen many of them before in our deliberations on the Data (Use and Access) Bill, as well as earlier in this Bill. Less than a fortnight ago, the Secretary of State delivered a speech in which she said that we are in the middle of a technology revolution in education and that technology is moving so quickly that: “The world of even 5 years ago is gone forever—already a lost, obsolete age”. We are in a time of change, but I am very concerned that this uncritical view of tech is difficult for schools. The Secretary of State is dismissing long-standing educational practices, honed by experience and research, in favour of technology, some of which is proven to be unsafe and to invade privacy, and much of which has yet to be tested. I will go through the amendments quickly. Amendment 238 would require the Secretary of State to prepare a statutory code of practice on the efficacy of educational technology within 18 months of the Act’s passing, and a certification scheme for minimum pedagogical standards for edtech procurement in schools. In December, the Minister wrote to me to say that the Government were developing a new approach to certify edtech products to make certain that they are safe and fit for purpose, through an accreditation service and statutory guidance. It seemed from the letter that she was referring to filtering and monitoring, which I will come to, but I would be grateful if she would clarify that when she responds. The problem is that the process by which we are interrogating edtech is far slower than the process by w…
- The academic evidence on what works in education is ferociously contested — phonics versus other methods, assessment-driven learning versus not. But the evidence consistently shows that technology use in schools needs to be evaluated rigorously before being embedded. We need a framework that ensures tools are assessed for educational effectiveness, not just marketed on promises.
I will be brief, given the time. I will talk about only two things and try to keep noble Lords awake with them: academic passion and the gut microbiome. That will keep noble Lords on their toes. On academic passion, when I was president of the paediatric college, we thought we did not have enough female professors of paediatrics. I adhered to that view until, one day, two of them were in my office at the same time, tearing strips out of each other so aggressively that I thought: “Yes, we need more of these people, but we should never let two be in one room at the same time”. I saw similar passion at an educational conference; the passion of those educational academics was quite something. There were arguments about whether assessment drives learning, between those who believe in it and those who do not. Similarly, there was an equally colourful argument about teaching children to read with phonics versus other methods. The striking thing about these academics is that, while years have gone into academic research and there are all sorts of controversies, the point is that everyone who is in this field is interested in educational outcomes, not commercial incomes. That is the difference with what we are seeing in the technology we are serving up to our children.
There is a common theme running through today's amendments: the pace of technological and social change means individual schools, teachers and families cannot navigate it alone in a laissez-faire way and produce good outcomes. That is why Amendments 238 to 240 deserve support.My Lords, I put my name to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for a very simple reason. An awful lot of what we have been discussing today, and in recent days in Committee, is about trying to make this Bill as child-centric and school-centric as possible. There is a common theme running through many of these amendments. Given the pace at which the world is changing and the challenges that parents, schools, teachers and children have, to allow each individual entity to try to navigate their way through these changes in a wonderfully sort or British laissez-faire way will be wholly unrealistic and will not produce good outcomes. Whether or not one likes to compare this country to them, examples of countries that have very centralised approaches to identifying what is safe and what is not safe for children include the People’s Republic of China—which, I remind noble Lords, has the only parliamentary assembly larger than your Lordships’ House—and France, to which some hereditary Peers perhaps have some antipathy for ancestral reasons. In both cases, those countries take it upon themselves systematically to proactively try to identify what is safe and what is not safe. As an example that I think I may have mentioned in Committee of what can go wrong, and is going wrong, one of the best known technologies in classrooms now is Google Classroom. Let us say that you are on Google Classroom, provided through the school, you are being asked to use that to do a project, and that project is something to do with geography. To complete your project, you naturally go to Google Maps, which is conveniently there on the screen as part of the cluster of products linked into Google Classroom. The minute you leave Google Classroom and go on to Google Maps, you as a child and you as a school lose every protection you previously had for your data. Everything suddenly becomes visible to Google, and the data becomes saleable. It is making money out of the schoolchildre…
- These Benches support Amendments 238, 239 and 240 from Baroness Kidron — her years of work in this field are acknowledged across the House. We need a firm date for publication of a code of practice on edtech data for children, and clarity that filtering and monitoring certification will happen.
My Lords, I start by acknowledging, as I am sure others in the House felt while listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, her many years of battling—I am sure it feels like battling—on this important area. I hope I speak on behalf of all of us, and I think I do, in thanking her for her work in this field. Every day we see more options to include edtech in our classrooms and different forms of technology and tools, and indeed in our homes for homework purposes. With that in mind, I express the support of these Benches for Amendments 238, 239 and 240 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I hope very much that we will get a firm date for the publication of a code of practice on the efficacy of edtech and on the use of children’s data. That is ever more pressing in a week when the Government have promised to roll out AI tutoring in schools. Of course, they are doing so with the best of intentions, but it creates an imperative to ensure that such tutoring is effective not just in engagement, where the evidence is pretty good, but, crucially, in learning, where the evidence is much less so. Indeed, a recent international study showed that the use of AI tutors resulted in improved homework grades but worse exam results when compared to those children who followed traditional approaches, suggesting that, without great care, edtech tools can be adopted that do not translate into long-term memory and deep learning. The message we have really heard in all the speeches tonight is the need for pace from the Government, and I am sure the Minister has heard that. The noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, also made a powerful case for his Amendment 227 and the strength of using existing standards to try to accelerate things and come up with a plan as quickly as possible. I have brought back the three amendments that I tabled in Committee. Amendment 234 would ensure that all public exams could be completed by hand, Amendment 235 would remove the use of devices from the receptio…
- The Government cannot support Amendments 227 and 238: safety and educational effectiveness are not the same regulatory question and should not be treated as one. Safety is already addressed through robust standards for generative AI, and we are considering consulting on a certification scheme. Effectiveness cannot be certified from a static list — it depends on age group, subject and setting. Our EdTech Evidence Board is developing a publishable framework, and we are investing £23 million over four years in edtech test beds with independent evaluation. On Amendment 239 — filtering and monitoring — I confirm the Government will consult on a certification scheme. On Amendment 240 — the ICO edtech code — regulations will require the ICO to produce an AI code first, followed by an edtech code; accelerating the edtech code ahead of the AI code would risk duplication. We share the same aims, but a rigid statutory regime would fall behind technological change faster than it could be updated.
As we turn to the amendments in group 11, which are, of course, on educational technology, I thank noble Lords for their focus during this debate on safety, effectiveness and fairness. The Government share these aims. We want schools and parents to have confidence in the tools being used and innovation that supports learning while protecting pupils’ data and well-being. We are clear that technology used in our schools must support learning and children’s development. It must not expose children to harm, undermine trust or operate without appropriate safeguards. The question before the House is not whether action is required—action is already under way—but how we ensure that protections are robust and enforceable and can keep pace with rapid technological change. I turn first to Amendment 227, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, and Amendment 238, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, which seek to strengthen assurance that education technology is safe, effective and permitted for use in schools through the introduction of a statutory mechanism. At this point, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, for the work that he was talking about with DfE to develop important new qualifications, which we are grateful for and which the Government will certainly want to maximise the use of. However, the amendments before us address that concern—the concern about whether tech is safe and effective—in a way that the Government do not believe is appropriate and cannot support, because they do it by treating safety and educational effectiveness as the same regulatory question when they are not. There is a clear distinction between product safety and pedagogical efficacy, and it is essential that we respond to each in the right way. If a tool is not safe, it should not be used in schools at all. That is why we have already introduced robust safety standards for generative AI, which will set clear expectations for tech companies to follow. That said, providing clari…
- You addressed equality of access to devices, but not the growing number of parents who want screen-free evenings or weekends at home. What would you say to those parents?
Before the noble Baroness sits down, she talked, in relation to my Amendment 236 and homework, about the Government’s concerns about equality of access to devices at home, but she did not address the point I raised about the increasing number of parents who want to have a screen-free evening at home, or screen-free weekends as a household. What would she say to those parents?
- Every school thinking about its homework policy should engage with parents on how that policy will work. But the amendment would limit the ability of schools to have those conversations and make decisions appropriate to their own community — that is why we are resisting it.
In those cases, I would expect every school thinking about its homework policy to have engaged with parents on the details of how that homework policy was going to work, but I think what was proposed by the noble Baroness in this amendment would limit the ability of schools to have those conversations and to make the decisions that were appropriate for them. It is on that basis that we are resisting it.
- None of these amendments stops the use of edtech — they introduce rules for its development and introduction. The whitelist in Amendment 227 is an irreducible minimum: every pupil would have access to that set of tools, and schools would remain entirely free to add to it. It is about enabling, not restricting.
Very briefly, given the time, I just want to reassure noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that none of the amendments—not just mine—stops the use of edtech; they introduce rules for its development and introduction into schools. For example, the whitelist is an irreducible minimum to ensure that all students in schools in England would have access to this minimum set of tools. Of course, schools will be entirely free to add to the whitelist appropriate websites that they felt would help the educational attainment of their children. So it is not about stopping but enabling, through a minimum set of tools, a whitelist, and about schools being able, if they felt it was appropriate, to add to that whitelist.
- Give us a date — not 'soon', not 'imminently', but a specific date — for when we will see the SEND White Paper. When will we know what the Government think is appropriate for children with special educational needs?
My Lords, the two amendments in this group were designed to, shall we say, spur the Government to tell us where we are with the developments on special educational needs. Basically, they are saying that we should have a structure you can teach all the way through. I do not think there is much point in saying any more, so I will ask but one question. Is the Minister, speaking on behalf of the Government, in a position to give us a date, preferably not in general terms of “soon”, “possibly” or “imminently”, but a date in time—possibly the number of weeks: let us start low and build up—when we will get the White Paper? When will we start to see what the Government think is appropriate? That is not too much to ask; it is already roughly half a year late. So, just that: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name to try to extract an answer from the Government.
- No, you cannot have a date — not even at one o'clock in the morning. We share the ambition for every child to have an education that meets their needs. We are fixing the SEND system, improving inclusivity and SEND expertise in schools, and strengthening accountability for inclusion. The amendments raise the right issues but are not the right vehicle.
Much as I try to satisfy Members in the House of Lords—for all the good it does me—no, you cannot have a date. Come on—everybody knows that you cannot have a date, even at one o’clock in the morning. But I will try to respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in his amendments. Just to be clear, as a starting point, we share the noble Lord’s ambition for every child to have an education that meets their needs. We are determined to fix the SEND system and rebuild families’ trust by improving inclusivity and SEND expertise in schools, giving teachers the tools to identify and support needs early, and strengthening accountability for inclusion. The amendments the noble Lord has raised speak to the heart of our vision: an inclusive education system, built on strong leadership, evidence-based early intervention and high-quality teaching for every learner. Amendment 228 seeks to place a new statutory duty on schools to adapt the national curriculum for individual pupils. We agree that children’s needs must be identified early and met well, but we fear that adding a new statutory requirement risks creating vague expectations around “sufficient” time and training, which could invite dispute rather than help schools. Since Committee, we have continued constructive engagement with SEND organisations, including on identifying and supporting needs early and consistently, and on workforce development. We have recently announced £200 million to be invested over the course of this Parliament to upskill staff in every school, college and nursery, ensuring a skilled workforce for generations to come. This builds on at least £3 billion for high-needs capital between 2026-27 and 2029-30, to support children and young people with SEND or those who require alternative provision. Amendment 229 proposes the establishment of a national body for SEND. We are aware of the challenges in the SEND system and how urgently we need to address them. However, as stated in Committ…
Amendment 233 would establish a national children's well-being measurement programme — a voluntary, confidential online survey delivered to pupils, providing schools and policymakers with data to understand what works. UK young people have some of the lowest well-being in Europe and the second worst in the OECD according to PISA data. Without a national baseline, we are guessing. Amendment 237 would require the Government to ensure every child has access to a qualified counsellor — closing the 'missing middle' of provision.My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 233, to which my name is attached, in the place of the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, who apologises that he is unable to be present. I will also speak briefly to my Amendment 237. I am sure many of us were struck by the passionate arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, and others in Committee for a national well-being measurement programme. The need for a holistic, regular survey of young people’s experiences remains pressing. Surveys show that the UK’s young people have some of the lowest well-being in Europe and the second worst in the OECD, according to PISA data. Amendment 233 would provide for an optional online well-being survey, delivered annually in schools, with centralised support, administration, analysis and data storage. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Layard and Lord Watson, for adding their names to this amendment as well. It is not calling for that data to be published or used in any way to penalise schools, and the wording requires confidentiality and consent at three levels: schools, parents or carers, and pupils. It is a fundamental point of this amendment that the survey is optional. A national scheme such as this would give young people a louder voice and would create a shared evidence base that would allow us to make a shift to prevention and early intervention across a wide range of services and issues that impact on well-being. It would also promote action outside school gates to support young people. This is important because schools alone are not responsible for our children’s well-being; we all are. The new national youth strategy highlights that fact, but without good data the Government will fund the scheme yet be unable to measure its impact. I recognise that since we began debating this Bill, the Minister’s department has begun consulting on a pupil experience framework, and this is a positive first step. However, there are two notable exceptions in the draft that I feel substantially r…
Amendment 242 is the last of 254 amendments on Report, on top of 725 in Committee — maximum scrutiny of this Bill. The Minister has confirmed the Government's commitment to whole-school approaches to mental health and well-being in principle, but existing guidance will remain non-statutory and key support programmes that closed will not return. Significant inequity in provision remains. A statutory duty is needed to move from aspiration to delivery.My Lords, nine months after Second Reading, in which I spoke, it falls to me to speak to the last of the, by my tally, 254 amendments on Report, on top of 725 amendments tabled in Committee, so we certainly had maximum scrutiny of this Bill in your Lordships’ House. I shall speak to my Amendment 242 and support the two other amendments in this group. Amendment 242 is similar to the one I moved in Committee in September. In that debate and in subsequent correspondence, the Minister confirmed the Government’s commitment to the principle of whole-school approaches, but she also made it clear that existing guidance will remain non-statutory and that the key support programmes that are now closed will not be reintroduced. As a result, significant inequity in provision remains, and that is the reason that I have returned with this amendment on Report. Children’s mental health and well-being are a significant concern, and recent statistics highlight that school is a major determinant of children’s lived experience and mental health, but the voluntary guidance on whole-school approaches to mental health and well-being has reached its limits after being first published in 2015.
- The Labour manifesto said 'nothing says more about the state of a nation than the wellbeing of its children'. If we mean that, we need to measure children's well-being nationally, comprehensively and regularly. A children's well-being Bill that has little to say about children's well-being is a missed opportunity.
My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of Amendment 233, as I was not able to speak on it in Committee. I am supportive of the other amendments in this group too. The Labour Party manifesto stated that “nothing says more about the state of a nation than the wellbeing of its children”, which is music to the ears of many of us. But if we are to know what the state of our nation is through the lens of children’s well-being, we need to measure that well-being nationally, comprehensively and regularly. Many of us warmly welcomed the idea of a children’s well-being Bill but, when it emerged, were a bit disappointed that it did not have that much to say about children’s well-being explicitly. This amendment would help to put well-being explicitly at the heart of the Bill, with implications for both the main parts. I hope the Government will now look favourably on this modified version of the amendment.
- The Parentkind National Parent Survey 2025 found that unhappiness among children doubles between primary and secondary school. We cannot deliver the changes this Bill promises without knowing what works — national well-being measurement is essential.
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I strongly support Amendment 233, as I did in Committee, as well as the other amendments in this group. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who reflected what many of us have been saying: the children’s well-being Bill has been short on well-being. Earlier—much earlier, yesterday now—we were talking about sport, culture, PSHE and citizenship education. But we need to see what does and does not work if we are going to deliver some of the changes that are clearly so urgently needed. I will refer to one survey: the National Parent Survey 2025, conducted by Parentkind, which found that unhappiness among children doubles between primary and secondary school. The parents said that the chief reason that their children were unhappy was that they were finding lessons uninteresting: the figure was 42%, which really is telling. I return to the Children’s Society’s Good Childhood Report 2025, already referred to, which of course was reporting on the opposite. One of its recommendations was: “Introduce a national wellbeing measurement programme”. It is just such an obvious thing for the Government to do.
- The Government is committed to improving mental health support for all children and young people, and we have already made progress in placing specialist mental health professionals in every school. On Amendment 233 — we welcome the voluntary approach, and we will provide non-statutory guidance to support schools to run well-being surveys. But a statutory national programme is not the right mechanism: schools should have discretion. On Amendment 242 — whole-school approaches to mental health are important, and we have committed to non-statutory guidance, but existing frameworks already support this. We will not accept these amendments.
Well, as we approach nine hours of considering the 13 groups that we have got through today, I note—and I am not being churlish—that if everybody who stood up and said, “I will speak only briefly” spoke only briefly, we would have saved a reasonable amount of time. However, let us move to the amendments. I start by assuring noble Lords that the Government are committed to improving mental health support for all children and young people, helping pupils to achieve and thrive in education. Of course, we are focused on, and have already made considerable progress in, providing access to specialist mental health professionals in every school. With that in mind, I turn to the amendments. Amendment 233, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, and introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, intends to establish a national children’s well-being measurement programme. We welcome the added emphasis that the measurement should remain voluntary for schools. While we are committed to supporting more schools to do this effectively, legislation is not necessary. As stated in Committee, the Government have already committed to publish non-statutory guidance helping schools to measure and act upon factors related to well-being. To do that, we are working with measurement experts, including from the Our Wellbeing Our Voice coalition, to establish standardised questions for schools to ask pupils about key modifiable factors that impact their engagement in school life and their well-being, including how this can inform their approach to promoting and supporting mental health. This will enable benchmarking, aggregation, and sharing of data and practice between schools and with partners. We are exploring whether and how this data could be collected centrally to inform national policy. In the meantime, we will continue to publish annually the data we collect centrally on pupils’ well-being and experiences in school. Amendment 237, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, would requir…
- The graveyard slot on the most fundamental issue for this Bill's success — that is just life. I welcome the progress the Government are making and the acknowledgement of the 'missing middle' and the role of counselling. There is more to do, but on that basis I withdraw.
My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate. It is never great to get the graveyard slot, particularly on an issue that is so fundamental to the success of the Bill, and to feel so time-constrained—but that is just life, is it not? I thank the Minister for outlining the progress that I acknowledge the Government are making in this area. I still think there is more to do, which is what these amendments press at, but I was grateful for her acknowledgement of the importance of the missing middle and the involvement of the counselling profession. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw.