Report stage in the Lords
Lords Report stage covered child poverty targets, school uniform costs, home education safeguards, child performers, yeshiva regulation, independent school oversight powers and MAT inspection — with a division on Amendment 114 (school uniform cap) and a late-night vote on academy accountability.
L(Targets are only a small part of the answer — we need a whole new toolkit to dismantle poverty. Eight government departments deal with poverty; if we faced an invasion, we would not leave it to eight ministries. Thirty per cent of teachers' time is swallowed by poverty coming into the classroom. Give us targets, yes, but then build the convergent, co-ordinated machinery to get rid of poverty for good — because 4.5 million children are still trapped in it and most of them never even reach the starting line of life.I am very pleased that this amendment is to be discussed again. What troubles me is that it could be such a small, insignificant thing to ask for targets from the Government. Are targets part of the armoury that we use to get rid of poverty? If we are endeavouring to get rid of poverty, we will need more than targets. We will need houses; we will need training for parents so that they do not pass poverty down to the next generation; we will need a Government who will converge and co-ordinate all the efforts into some form whereby they can say that they are disentangling the situation. At the moment, we have eight government departments dealing with poverty. I imagine that if we did not have a Ministry of Defence and people decided to attack this country, we would form a Ministry of Defence, bring everything together and not leave it to eight different ministries. The same goes for poverty. Poverty is destroying us. Poverty is stopping schools delivering schooling: 30% of teachers’ time is spent on the problems that are caused when poverty enters the classroom. In our health service, 50% of people who suffer from cardiological—whatever you call it; forgive me, I have new teeth—are suffering from food poverty. I have used this amendment to raise not only the question of targets but the point that the Government should use them. They should have others measuring their homework rather than doing it themselves. I have heard from the Government that, if you have targets, you tend to have people massaging the figures to make it look as though the targets are being achieved and that you then go after the low-hanging fruit because you do not get anywhere near the hardest to reach—you can achieve your targets by concentrating on the fact that it is easier to help those who are the low-hanging fruit. Overall, my big question is whether targets could fit in a panoply of organised, convergent energy that is used to get rid of poverty. I am not here to talk just about just this a…
The Government's child poverty strategy is welcome, and so is its monitoring and evaluation framework, but a statutory target would give us a proper yardstick — something Scotland already has, which is why its child poverty rate is 23 % against 31 % in England and Wales. Targets must be binding and stretch beyond rhetoric.My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of Amendment 107, to which I have added my name, moved by such a warrior against poverty, not least as it provides an opportunity to welcome the Government’s landmark child poverty strategy. Sadly, the Opposition did not think it important enough to ask for the Statement on it to be repeated in your Lordships’ House. I welcome, too, the strategy’s accompanying monitoring and evaluation frameworks, supported by a theory of change, based on clear measures and what it calls a “wide-ranging evidence base”. This includes hearing directly from children, young people and families with lived experience of poverty, building on the strong engagement with them during the strategy’s development.
Statutory targets help voters too — a government sets them at the start of a Parliament and is judged against them at the end. Remove the overall benefit cap and 300,000 children leave poverty immediately; that is the kind of measurable progress a target forces. The JRF's own figures show headline poverty rates staying flat between 2026 and 2029 and the poorest getting poorer.My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the powerful and important speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the equally important speech from the noble Lord, Lord Bird. I signed the similar amendment in Committee, but I left a space on this one in the hope against hope that a party less likely than mine would have signed up to it and that a broader spread of support might have been shown—but that did not happen. On the point the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, made about a yardstick, I was thinking—perhaps because I have been out campaigning on the doorstep this morning—about an additional argument that was not made in Committee or here: this would be of help to voters. A Government starts out and sets targets; then, as you get to the end of the Parliament and the next election, voters would have a clear sense of whether they had met their targets and done what they intended to achieve. It would also put great pressure on all parties competing in the next election to say, if they are elected to be the Government, what their child poverty reduction target will be. That would be useful, clear and obvious to voters. We must acknowledge where we are now. We have already heard about child poverty, but must refer to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s analysis of the OBR figures, which says that the headline poverty rate between 2026 and 2029 will stay essentially the same. The poorest are getting poorer. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred to the addition of deep poverty to this amendment: 6.8 million people across these islands are in deep poverty, the highest level on record. It has hardened—a technical term that I have just learned —as the average person in poverty is now 29% below the poverty line; that was 23% in the mid-1990s. One of the obvious things that would address this target and make a big difference would be the abolition the overall benefit cap. I applaud the Government’s action on the two-child cap, but removing the overall benefit cap would i…
The Climate Change Act shows what binding targets with clear timescales can do: sustained, cross-government action. Without legally enforceable targets there is no guarantee that the promised lift of 550,000 children out of poverty is delivered and sustained across future administrations. I speak from lived experience — I was on free school meals, got subsidised clothing, and had to take a YTS scheme at £27.50 a week instead of going to college.My Lords, I also support Amendment 107, moved by our friend, the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and will follow the powerful speeches by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Bennett. The amendment is timely. It supports our children, particularly those most in need. As we heard, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s analysis on child poverty in Britain has said that 4.5 million children are living in poverty—a figure that continues to climb, even after the most recent policy changes. These are not abstract numbers; they are the lived reality of millions of families who are denied the security and opportunity that every child deserves. The amendment goes beyond rhetoric: it would require the Government to set binding targets, with clear timescales, and to account publicly for each step taken towards meeting them. Doing so would emulate principles behind other statutory frameworks. The most obvious is the Climate Change Act, through which parliamentary accountability has driven sustained action and cross-government focus. The noble Lord, Lord Bird, talked about eight separate departments having some sort of responsibility for child poverty. That rigour should be applied to the fight against child poverty. Peer-reviewed evidence makes it clear why this matters. International literature also shows that poverty has causal, long-term impacts on children’s health, educational attainment and future incomes. Children in low-income families are more likely to suffer poor health, lower school attainment and diminished life opportunities than their better-off peers. Moreover, robust reviews find that increased family income improves children’s educational and health outcomes, including school performance and future prospects. I am not just reviewing the literature: I speak before noble Lords with my own lived experience as someone who was on free school meals, who got subsidised school clothing and who could not afford to go to college simply because we were poor. I had to go and work…
Every pupil I teach in Hackney has target grades; if they miss them I have to explain why. Fifty-five per cent of our school is on free school meals. If we solve child poverty, this entire Bill becomes so much more powerful. Targets work — please accept the amendment.I am indeed a schoolteacher. Every day in Hackney I see the effects of poverty. We still have 55% free school meals in our school. Schoolteachers are very used to targets. Every pupil has target grades and if they do not hit their target grades, we have to explain why. It really does focus the mind. If we can solve child poverty, the entire Bill will be so much more powerful. The best way to solve poverty is with targets, so I beg the Government to accept the amendment.
Support the amendment in principle. One or two simple, measurable targets would help enormously — for instance, a target to get every child in temporary accommodation into secure long-term housing. During Covid we cleared rough sleeping almost entirely; we can set a similar ambition for children.My Lords, I will speak briefly to support the amendment in principle. I wonder whether we could get one or two simple targets to measure as indicators of potential poverty. Yesterday, a new report came out called, It’s Like Torture: Life in Temporary Accommodation for Neurodivergent Children and their Families. I believe that temporary accommodation for children is one of the biggest indicators of a lack of well-being, and it is linked to poverty. During Covid, we got almost every rough sleeper off the streets. It is time that we set a target to get every child in temporary accommodation into secure long-term accommodation. I urge the Government to consider that in relation to children’s well-being.
As a former NHS chief executive I know there are bad targets and good ones. The key is choosing the right ones and being honest when they are missed — that is precisely what binding child poverty targets would force.My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow so many powerful speeches and support my noble friend Lord Bird’s amendment. As a former chief executive of the English NHS, I know a thing or two about targets. There are some awful targets and some good ones. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Barber, is in his place, as the then Government’s “delivery tsar”, or whatever the right title was in those days.
Targets alone are not enough — what matters is doing things. The fifth or sixth-richest country in the world has teachers feeding and clothing pupils; a million young people are not in employment, education or training. Removing the two-child benefit cap is a real action. Let us see a holistic approach: proper jobs, decent housing, good schools — not just more targets and strategies.My Lords, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Bird, is a warrior and passionate advocate for the unemployed and the poor. I have a slightly different take on this. Yes, targets and strategies are important, but how often do we say that we will sort this issue out by establishing targets and strategies? Actually, what is important is doing something. It is no good just agreeing a target or strategy; it is about doing things, having policies and carrying out actions which make a real difference. I am quite ashamed that we live in the fifth or sixth-richest country in the world, yet only the other day, the LGIU published information which said that, even with breakfast clubs and free school meals, teachers are increasingly feeding and clothing their pupils when they come to school. The fifth or sixth-richest country in the world and we are doing that. I am ashamed that there are a million young people not in a job, employment or training. That cannot be right in the fifth or sixth-richest country in the world. We need to take actions. I congratulate the Government on doing away with the two-child benefit cap. That is an action which will make a huge difference. Some of the other policies that Governments quite rightly trot out, such as introducing breakfast clubs or doing this on clothing, are important but are not the big things that will make a difference to child poverty. In the fifth or sixth-richest country in the world, it is also frightening to realise that 21% of adults live in poverty. So, it has to be—I hate using the word, but I will do it—a holistic approach. It is about making sure that people have jobs. If you have a well-paid, proper job, that helps your family and children. If you have a decent house, not with mould, damp or whatever it is, that helps your child, family and self-esteem. If you have decent schools, as the Bill is trying build on the work of the previous Government, that is life-changing as well. So let us see actions: not more targets or str…
We share the goal of reducing child poverty, but legally binding central targets risk overlooking local and regional variation and shift focus from people to statistics. We want to see the monitoring and evaluation arrangements that should accompany the Government's strategy, and we look forward to judging whether they deliver results.My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for his relentless focus on tackling poverty through the Big Issue and Big Issue Invest, investing in social enterprises, social purpose businesses and charities trying to end poverty and reduce inequality in the UK. Your Lordships’ House is united in its determination to address child poverty and the range of complex issues that drive it. While we fully recognise the firm intent behind this amendment, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition retain a number of reservations, which we shared in Committee. We unequivocally hold a desire to reduce child poverty, but the issue is deeply complex. We have concerns that legally binding targets determined by central government risk overlooking the local and regional variances in the causality and the experiences of child poverty. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, highlighted in Committee, the pursuit of targets can often shift the focus on to particular statistics rather than people’s lived experiences. Central government must be able to adapt to ever developing needs and realities, in addition to enabling local authorities and organisations—which are often better placed to understand these esoteric local challenges—to act accordingly. We will therefore welcome seeing the details of the Government’s child poverty strategy when it is published in the autumn, including new monitoring and evaluation arrangements to track progress, which, with the right strategy for delivery, should yield results. We once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for his dedication to this vital issue. While we cannot support the amendment directly, we strongly welcome the intentions behind it.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)Lab16:15 HansardOur child poverty strategy goes far beyond rhetoric and the JRF calls it 'hugely welcome'. It will deliver the largest reduction in child poverty in a single Parliament — 550,000 children lifted out of poverty, principally by removing the two-child limit and expanding free school meals, both of which this Government have already done. A baseline report will be published in summer 2026 with annual reporting thereafter, so the public and this House can hold us to account. We have also committed to a cross-government child poverty team with ministerial oversight. We believe this is the right approach rather than statutory targets, and I hope the noble Lord will withdraw.My Lords, Amendment 107, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to set legally binding child poverty reduction targets. I agree with other noble Lords that we have a shared objective to tackle child poverty. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for his commitment, the campaigning that he does and for the engagement with the Government on child poverty. We had a very good meeting, I thought, where we talked about the work of the Big Issue and the rightful challenge to the Government to ensure that the structure within government and the measurement of our objectives meet the challenge that has been set here. I will talk about how we will ensure that this happens. I am proud that this Government have now published our child poverty strategy, going far beyond rhetoric—as one noble Lord suggested that we should do. But I do not agree with those who have argued that all Governments are the same or that the strategy lacks credibility. Several noble Lords have quoted the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Its annual poverty report, published yesterday, states that the child poverty strategy is “hugely welcome”—particularly after the last Government made no progress in reducing poverty. The foundation welcomes the child poverty strategy delivering the projected biggest reduction in child poverty in a single Parliament. We have been clear that our wide-ranging child poverty strategy will see the largest reduction in child poverty by any Government in a single Parliament, lifting 550,000 children out of poverty, principally through the expansion of free school meals and removing the two-child limit. These are both things that this Government have already done—to take up the challenge set by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. But, of course, we need to measure and demonstrate progress being made on this strategy. I completely take on board that challenge. That is why the monitoring and evaluation framework, which was published alongside the strat…
- We need a new toolkit to dismantle poverty — targets are one instrument in that toolkit, not the be-all and end-all. Of the 4.5 million still in poverty, the real problem is inherited poverty: 90 % of those I work with in homelessness, long-term unemployment and the custodial system come from families that were poor before them. That inheritance is what we have to break.
Thank you very much. I have decided to join the Conservative Party. Can I meet the noble Earl afterwards and fill in the forms? Forgive me, I was only joking. I have never received such praise in the House. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I was trying to say that we need a new toolkit to dismantle poverty. Having a way of measuring it and of taking people to task because we say, “This is what you said you would achieve” can never be, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, the be-all and end-all. It must be part of the road towards the accumulation of evidence, the accumulation of opportunity and the accumulation of thinking that gets us somewhere we have never been before. I do not want to pooh-pooh the Government or any Government for achieving the remarkable removal of 450,000 young people from poverty, but what about the other 4 million? That is the real problem. The real problem is that we are passing from generation to generation. A load of people who I have identified— 90% of the people I work with in homelessness, 90% of the people I work with in long-term unemployment, and 90% of the people I work with in the custodial system—come from the inheritance of poverty. They inherit poverty in the same way that Boris Johnson or David Cameron or anybody else inherits their position in the pecking order. If we have a situation where we have millions of people never arriving at the starting line of life, we have a major problem. That is where we need to concentrate our energy.
- A blanket ban on social media is not the right answer — some aspects are genuinely important for young people. We want the dangerous elements banned, not a wholesale prohibition. The amendment from the other side was carried; ping-pong is the right moment for all parties to agree a workable way forward. In the meantime we wish to test the opinion of the House on our Amendment 108.
We on these Benches are strongly committed to safeguarding children and protecting them from the risks of the online world. As we recall, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, proposed an amendment that was a straightforward ban on social media. The Government are proposing a three-month big conversation, from which we will, perhaps, come together and agree a way forward. On these Benches, however, we believe that it is not as simple as that. A blanket ban is not that easy. We think that some aspects of social media are very important for young people and very supportive of young people. Rather than a blanket ban, we would want to see the dangerous elements of social media banned. Of course, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, was carried. It will come back at ping-pong. I hope that will be the opportunity—I promise to come to every meeting—for the parties to come together and agree a way forward. In the meantime, we on these Benches would like to test the opinion of the House on our Amendment 108.
- Uniform costs average £400 per child and over £440 at secondary — for a family with two or three children that can top £1,000 in a single year. My Amendment 114 would replace the Government's cap on the number of branded items with a monetary cost cap: focus on what families actually pay, not on counting logos. Amendment 118 would add a provision for schools to maintain a uniform exchange scheme.
My Lords, I have Amendments 114 and 118 in this group on the cost of school uniforms. This issue is about far more than clothing; it goes to the heart of the cost of living crisis. It affects children’s dignity and well-being, and, ultimately, their ability to learn and succeed in school. For too many families, the start of the school year is no longer a moment of optimism; it is about anxiety. Parents dread opening the uniform price list, knowing that compliance is mandatory and flexibility is limited. Branded blazers, logoed jumpers, PE kits and specialist items are often required from a single supplier, with costs running to hundreds of pounds per child, payable up front, when household budgets are already under severe strain. The evidence is clear. Research commissioned by the Department for Education shows that the average cost of school uniforms and PE kits is close to £400 per child, rising to over £440 for secondary school pupils. These are not trivial sums. For families with two or three children, the cost can exceed £1,000 in a single year. For parents who are on low incomes, with insecure jobs or reliant on benefits, these costs are simply not manageable. The reality for many households is stark. Parents report cutting back on food, delaying rent or utility payments, or taking on high street debt, simply to ensure children are not penalised for incorrect uniforms. Some skip meals so their children can attend school properly dressed. Others are humiliated into asking schools for help or exemptions, knowing that support is inconsistent and often discriminatory. The consequences fall most heavily on children. When families cannot afford the required uniforms, pupils are sent home, isolated from lessons or disciplined because their clothing does not meet school rules. Others attend school embarrassed and anxious that they stand out or are judged for their family’s circumstances. This sense of shame undermines confidence and damages well-being. This matters no…
School uniforms sit on children's skin all day, and the evidence on PFAS — 'forever chemicals' — is now incontrovertible. Fabrics containing PFAS are in most school uniforms; emerging peer-reviewed research links early-life exposure to reduced cognitive and language development in infants and increased hyperactivity in childhood. This is a health time bomb. Require uniforms to be PFAS-free.I very much support all the amendments around trying to make uniforms more affordable, but I want to speak about a health time bomb that we are sitting on, much in the way that we spoke about smoking some years ago, or ultra-processed food. It is the whole question about PFAS in our systems: in everything we eat and touch, but in particular, in this case, in school uniforms. Uniforms that are made from fabrics that contain PFAS constantly contact your skin and the results and the emerging evidence are now incontrovertible. I also support Amendment 119A from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about the health, generally, of uniforms. Forever chemicals, as they are commonly referred to, are a group of over 10,000 chemicals that exist over many products. We call them “forever chemicals” partly because they are so widespread and partly because, so far, they do not appear to break down. They are relatively new, so we do not know whether they are going to break down in 100 years. Right now, though, they are not breaking down. The quickest way for any of us here to find out whether we have them in our system is to get the test, give a drop of blood and find out what is in your body. Serious evidence is emerging. Yesterday morning I signed an NDA with Netflix in order to watch its newest documentary on the question of forever chemicals. In particular, this was around children, babies and fertility, but it obviously stretched to the wider implications for all of us, and in particular our children, because they have grown up in the plastic era. There is now evidence from Denmark to suggest that prenatal exposure is associated with reduced IQ scores in seven year-old children, and in Germany, there is new research showing that PFAS is significantly associated with reduced tetanus, rubella and diphtheria immunity. So it has effects all over the place. We must remember that these chemicals have been put into systems: not just our food and what we touch, or what we make things out…
- A January 2024 review of 35 studies confirms PFAS causes subtle but population-wide neurodevelopmental harm — reduced cognition, language delay and increased hyperactivity. The Netflix documentary adds to a well-established body of scientific evidence. Make uniform fabric standards part of this Bill.
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who has powerfully made the case for Amendment 119. She referred to the Netflix documentary that we have not yet seen. I am going to go back a little further to a review article that came out in January last year, titled Effects of Early-life PFAS Exposure on Child Neurodevelopment: A Review of the Evidence and Research Gaps. It looked at 35 studies, most of which were in the previous five years. It found subtle but potentially very significant impacts of low-level exposure on population-wide neurodevelopment. What does that actually mean? It means reduced cognitive development and language development in infants and increased behavioural issues such as hyperactivity in childhood.
Does the Government's cap on branded items apply to extracurricular kit — sports strips, for example — that are not mandatory and may have been gifted or loaned to the school free of charge? The guidance is unequivocal that gifted items are counted, which is absurd: are charities really being told they must refuse donated strips from football clubs? Amendment 117 would exempt those items.My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Knowledge Schools Trust, a multi-academy trust that I co-founded, which now has nine schools in it. When I tabled this amendment in Committee, there was some confusion as to whether the cap on the number of branded items of school uniform proposed in the Bill applied to extracurricular activities. Are mandatory branded items for an activity that is not itself mandatory, such as being in a school sports team, outwith the cap or included in it, even if they have been lent or donated to the school free of charge? The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, believed that they were outwith the cap—and therefore Amendment 117, which would exempt items loaned or gifted to a school, would be unnecessary. The Department for Education has now published draft statutory guidance on how schools should interpret the uniform clauses in the Bill, making it clear that branded items that are mandatory for extracurricular activities, even if they are provided to children free of charge, are included in the cap. It says: “All loaned or gifted branded items will be captured within the limit if they are required to be worn. However, schools can continue to lend, give out or make available for sale additional branded items, as long as wearing those items is optional”. That could not be clearer: if a school insists that children playing for a school team are required to wear a branded item so that their fellow team members can distinguish them from members of the opposing team, for instance, those items are included in the cap, which I remind noble Lords is three items for primary schools and four for secondary schools, including a school tie. That includes items loaned or gifted to the school. At this point, I acknowledge that the Government have allowed some exceptions to this rule. When I spoke in Committee, I pointed out that the cap would make it impossible for schools to maintain a Combined Cadet Force, even though the uniform for th…
A monetary limit is obviously better than a number — that much is self-evident. And requiring a multi-academy trust to refuse gifted sports kit from a football club because it would push above a three-item cap is, frankly, potty.My Lords, I support Amendment 114 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, and my noble friend Lord Young’s Amendment 117. It is clearly a better solution to have a monetary limit than a number—that just seems obvious. As for gifted items, I could not agree more with my noble friend. Are we really saying that if I manage to secure for my multi-academy trust some free gifted strip from a football club, I have to say to those people, as a charity, “I’m sorry, I know I’m a charity, but the Government have passed a law which requires me to say no, I can’t take your benefit in kind. I’m sorry”? It is potty, because I am clearly going to have at least three other items apart from a tie. It is clearly daft, and I very much look forward to the noble Baroness’s explanation as to why they are so insistent on this point.
The draft guidance illustrates what happens when the cart is put before the horse — an announcement was made about limiting branded items before the policy goal was properly defined. The result is Kafkaesque: a rule that probably will not save parents a single penny.My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 117 in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Acton, to which I have added my name. Although it may seem a small point, it matters. The draft guidance perfectly illustrates the consequences of poor policy-making: the cart was put before the horse and an announcement was made about reducing the number of branded items but without the clarity about the policy goal that should have informed the drafting of the legislation. I will not repeat the examples given by others, but it is unfortunate that the draft guidance is so unequivocal. It is the kind of Kafkaesque rule that brings officialdom into ill repute, and it probably will not save parents a single penny. I add that if the policy goal is narrowly to save all parents money on school uniforms, this could be better achieved through Amendment 114, which would give schools more flexibility and avoid the problem that Amendment 117 is intended to address—although I believe that an automatic inflation adjustment should be incorporated to avoid the messiness of an annual review. If this limit is enacted, will the Minister ensure that two particular impacts are fully evaluated. First, what is the social impact on children? In demonising branded clothing, the Government have lost sight of part of the value of uniforms. Uniforms are not only about badging and encouraging identification with an institution but about having all children wear clothing that is genuinely identical in quality and cut, not just broadly similar in appearance. We all know how sensitive the young are to status markers, such as having the right—usually expensive—trainers, even when the differences are all but invisible to the adult eye. Fewer school-branded items may mean more pressure on children to have the highest-status version of the unbranded items, which will inevitably bear hardest on the poorest children, so this should be evaluated. The evaluation should also consider whether parents spend less money not…
A monetary cap is more flexible and future-proof — polling shows 67 % of primary teachers would support replacing traditional uniforms with activewear. A number-of-branded-items approach does not work when schools are moving to entirely practical clothing worn throughout the day.My Lords, I add my support to Amendment 114, which I believe provides a more flexible approach to achieving the Government’s aims of keeping down the cost of school uniforms while ensuring that the legislation before us is better future-proofed to potential changes in individual school policies. For instance, noble Lords may have seen reports of the growing number of schools, particularly primary schools, that are replacing traditional uniforms with activewear uniforms that consist of practical, weather-appropriate sportswear that is worn throughout the day. A recent Times article highlighted polling that found that 67% of primary school teachers would support their school adopting an always-active uniform policy and that schools that have done so have reported improvements in academic achievement, well-being and attendance. This is just one example of how attitudes to school uniform are already changing. It may well be that the cap on items that the Government are talking about becomes irrelevant as attitudes to school uniform change, but surely it is better to have an annually reviewed monetary cap that allows schools to develop their uniform to the requirements of the pupils, parents and governing bodies than to arbitrarily choose a number of items which may, in the long term, mean that legislation needs to be revisited anyway.
- These clauses come from a genuine attempt to limit parents' spending, and I support that goal, but a named-item cap creates perverse results. School uniforms matter enormously for dignity — I taught a 14-year-old girl whose pregnancy was hidden by her blazer for months. The PFAS evidence from Baroness Boycott is genuinely alarming.
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 117, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, and Amendment 119, which was so powerfully and scarily introduced by my noble friend Baroness Boycott. These clauses came from a very real attempt by the Government to limit parents’ spending at a time when the cost of living is so high. I spoke at great length at Second Reading and in Committee about how important school uniforms are. I talked about a 14 year-old girl whom I taught and most of whose pregnancy was hidden by her blazer. It is important, particularly for girls, that changing shapes are hidden during school. It promotes equality and unity. Amendment 117 is particularly good about sport. I remember the first time we were given a full kit with all our numbers on it in Dyson Perrins CofE high school’s under-15 rugby side. It made us feel unbeatable—until we got beaten. Having listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, we need to make sure that they are not going to poison us. Local businesses often sponsor kits for local football teams; it seems churlish and idiotic not to accept it.
- Throughout my teaching career in the most deprived communities on Merseyside I saw that the parents with the least took the greatest pride in how their children were dressed. The Government's intention is right but this is not the way to achieve it — a kilt, braided blazer and jumper in school colours can cost a fortune yet technically be only three items.
My Lords, I speak briefly in support of Amendment 114. Throughout my teaching career, I taught in the most deprived communities on Merseyside, and I always observed that the parents with the least were the ones who took the greatest pride in how their children were attired. I pay huge tribute to them. I understand where the Government are coming from on this: uniforms cost a lot. However, as I said in Committee, this is not the way to do it. There are so many “ands”, “ifs” and “buts”. For example, a uniform in the school colours that consists of a kilt, a braided blazer and a jumper can cost a fortune compared to five items that are simply branded. It is quite difficult to know how to move forward, but the old way of doing it was probably better, whereby you could obtain a uniform grant, and many local authorities still do that. We all share the same goal of making school uniforms affordable for every family, but good intentions without practical wisdom can lead us precisely where we do not wish to go. I fear that if we are faced with a three-item cap, this could happen. Let me speak plainly about what happens when policy meets the playground. The Schoolwear Association tells us that 85% of retailers believe schools will drop branded PE kits entirely to avoid breaching the cap. When that happens, families do not suddenly pay less; they pay more. They turn to Nike or Adidas, the commercial brands that cost nearly double what specialist school suppliers charge. An £11 school PE top becomes a £20 branded alternative. It gets worse. Schools in the West Midlands are already dropping particular sports from the curriculum because the new guidance prevents them having school-specific sport kits for those activities. One school that was mentioned in the Times last week has adopted as its school kit “casual sportswear”. As I say, that is not really a school uniform, but it is very expensive to wear, and no doubt the branded sports kit as a school uniform—albeit three items—ca…
- The Government's commitment is to cut uniform costs by limiting branded items, giving parents flexibility to shop on the high street. Amendment 117 is not necessary: DfE guidance already makes clear that gifted or loaned items are excluded from the cap. On Amendment 114, a monetary cap sounds simple but would require government to set a single national figure that either fails to reflect price variation across the country or displaces decisions that head teachers are better placed to make. We are committed to keeping costs down for families and will keep our approach under review.
My Lords, it seems appropriate to follow the debate on child poverty with a debate about the action this Government are taking to cut costs for families—in this case, our commitment to cutting the cost of school uniforms for families by limiting the number of branded items that schools can require pupils to have. This will give parents the flexibility to buy more items from a range of retailers, including high street retailers, and to make spending decisions that suit their circumstances. Turning to the specifics of the amendments, Amendment 117, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, would exclude from the limit on branded uniform items which have been loaned or provided free of charge to pupils. It would allow schools to require pupils to wear more than three branded items of uniform—or more than four where a secondary school includes a branded tie—provided that parents do not have to pay for them. I appreciate the issues and concerns underpinning this amendment, particularly the need to preserve schools’ ability to lend or give branded uniform, or the ability to accept loans or gifts of sports equipment, but it is not necessary. Following my letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on this matter, I wrote to Peers highlighting the recent draft statutory guidance, confirming that optional items are excluded from the limit. Schools may still sell, loan, or provide additional branded items, provided that wearing them is optional. For example, schools will still be able to loan or provide a specific kit for inter-school sports competitions, as many already do. However, schools should not require pupils to wear branded items for activities unless they count towards the limit. If a pupil cannot or does not wish to wear a loaned branded item, schools should allow a suitable alternative such as a plain sports shirt in a similar colour, or another branded item already part of their PE kit or uniform. Speaking as the former goalkeeper of the Dyson Perrins CofE Ac…
- Thank you to all who contributed to a fantastic debate. I still wish to test the opinion of the House.
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to what was a fantastic debate. However, I would still like to test the opinion of your Lordships’ House.
- Most families who home-educate do so with their child's best interests at heart and do not present safeguarding concerns. But some children are in unsafe or unsuitable education and, unlike school pupils, lack regular contact with adults who can safeguard them. These measures strike the right balance — building on the Children Act 1989 and repeated attempts by the previous Government to legislate for children not in school. Recent evidence, including a serious case review following a child's death, reinforces the need for stronger safeguards.
My Lords, before I turn to the groups concerning home education, I thank noble Lords for the thoughtful contributions made in Committee and those who have engaged since then in detailed discussions with my department. I want to reiterate that most families who choose to home-educate do so with their child’s best interests at heart. They do not present safeguarding concerns, and it is not the Government’s intention to place unnecessary burdens on them. However, we must face the reality that some children are in unsafe or unsuitable education and, unlike children in school, they can lack regular contact with adults who can safeguard and support them. These measures seek to strike the right balance between recognising parents’ right to home-educate while ensuring that vulnerable children do not slip through the cracks. They follow repeated attempts by the previous Government and others to legislate for children not in school registers. Of course, new evidence recently has come to light that further underlines the need for appropriate information sharing, earlier identification of children’s needs and stronger safeguards for home-educated children. The local child safeguarding practice review into the tragic death of Sara Sharif, the NSPCC’s Tipping Point report, and Ofsted and CQC’s thematic review into children not in school all underline the need for more touchpoints for children who are currently being home-educated or children in school who may become home-educated in future. In reflecting on the findings of the Sara Sharif review, it is important to be clear that, while home education was relevant to Sara’s visibility to agencies, her death was caused by the actions of her father, not by her being home-educated. The review identified serious system-level failures across multiple agencies. That is why the Bill contains a broader set of reforms to strengthen multi-agency practice, improve information sharing and enhance professional oversight and decision-making acr…
- The Government have moved on some details — I am grateful — but I want to press further. A significant set of amendments has arrived very late and I do not think the full implications have been thought through. Most local authorities already hold annual meetings with home-educating families under case law; why have those been ignored and new, additional requirements layered on top? The whole policy on home education needs to be revisited — I expect unease and protest across the country as these measures bed in.
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister that the Government have moved on some of the concerns raised by me and others, particularly about some of the detail required on the register. However, I of course want to press her to move further. A lot of new and significant amendments have just arrived. I want to make two general points relating to those amendments and then comment on several of them. I believe that the Government need to revisit their whole policy on home education. We are debating a significant set of amendments very late in the day which are creating a new regime, but I do not think the full implications have been thought through. Let me give one example which is relevant to this group and to other areas. As many noble Lords will know, most local authorities—I believe it is most rather than just many—hold annual meetings with or request annual reports from home-educating parents in their area. These are done regularly on the basis of case law, which says that local authorities are entitled to ask for an annual meeting or an annual report, which involves quite a lot of work. I do not understand why these have been ignored and the additional requirements for meetings, information and monitoring are not built around them. There seems to be inconsistency in developing the policy. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain—either on this group or on one of the groups to do with information on activities on the register—why the Government have chosen to ignore this annual reporting system which exists in so many places. Presumably, it was an explicit decision to do so. Can I also ask her to confirm that parents will still have to comply with requests for annual reports or meetings? Or can they now just say, “Look at the register”? Home education has changed enormously in the last few years and policy certainly needs to reflect this, but it needs to be based on a detailed examination of what is going on. Most importantly—we have not really spent time i…
- Schools are an important part of the safeguarding system, especially for higher-risk children. A care order is a drastic state intervention. Maintaining a child protection plan is expensive. When either has been used, a request by a parent to home-educate is a signal that risk may have resurfaced. Amendment 121A and Amendment 131A would require local authority consent for home-education withdrawal where a child has ever been in care proceedings or on a child protection plan — not as a burden on the many, but as a proportionate net cast over the children most at risk.
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 121A, relating to local authority consent for the withdrawal of certain children from school, and to Amendment 131A, empowering local authorities to make home visits to children who have ever been subject to a care order or on a child protection plan. Both amendments have been proposed by my noble friend Lady Barran and are supported by other noble Lords on other Benches. Broadly, I have welcomed the provisions in the Bill strengthening protections for children not in school or removed from schools, and I am grateful to the Government for the amendments that they have tabled since Committee, but I do not believe that is enough. We need to recognise more clearly that, in some circumstances, the declared intention to home-educate can in itself be a signal that some risk or harm has resurfaced. No safeguarding system can ever be entirely comprehensive and infallible, and indeed safeguarding work should always be proportionate, but schools are an important part of that system, especially for children at higher risk. Social work always involves a difficult balance. A care order is a drastic intervention. Maintaining a child protection plan is expensive and intrusive into family life. We do not keep children in care or on protection plans by default, and it is normal for the level of intervention to be adjusted in line with circumstances. So, while a child is of school age, schools provide an important continuing residual line of sight to the child and are responsible for alerting local authorities if they believe that a child’s circumstances have deteriorated.
The Sara Sharif case happened despite multiple earlier reviews. An extreme preventive approach is justified to ensure it is not repeated. Two-thirds of children's services are now in reasonable shape — but what about the other third? If, God forbid, another such case occurs, the opprobrium will be immense. These amendments are a proportionate safeguard.My Lords, I am happy to have added my name to Amendments 121A and 131A by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I am grateful to officials from the Department for Education who had a meeting with us to discuss these amendments and the reasoning behind them. The reasoning behind those amendments is really simple. The Sara Sharif incident happened despite multiple reviews looking into not dissimilar cases, in some cases over previous decades. In this case, I do feel that almost an extreme preventive approach is required to make sure that we do not have a repetition. The point was made by the officials that there have been significant improvements in the quality of children’s services in most of the country and about two-thirds are now in a reasonable shape, but that raises the question: what about the other third? If there is another case, God forbid, like Sara Sharif —and history, for I am a historian by background, teaches us that that probably will happen—the opprobrium that will be heaped upon whichever unfortunate Ministers and officials happen to be in office at the time will be considerable and, in our view, is avoidable. We should mitigate that risk by assuming that we have to legislate for the one-third of children’s services that are not in good shape, because that is almost certainly where the accidents will happen. One of the key findings of the Sara Sharif review was that there have been systemic weaknesses again and again, despite all the inquiries and the well-intentioned actions that followed them. This is important enough that we feel we have to prepare and assume that the worst might happen and do everything in our power to prevent it.
- There is a real problem of mistrust between elective home educators and the state. Even DfE officials, when we met them, framed our proposed amendments as setting the field for a bad ball — we are being accused of going to extremes. But the test for these amendments is: would they help? And the answer is yes.
My Lords, I added my name to Amendments 121A and 131A. There is a real problem of mistrust with elective home education against traditional education. I acknowledge my noble friend Lord Crisp, and am delighted to be on his working party to try to do something about it. I was in the same meeting as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and my noble friend Lord Russell where we talked to the DfE. It was rather wonderful, because instead of talking about technicalities, one of the people there started talking about cricket, which I am much happier with than Section 31s and things. He accused us of setting the field for a bad ball—so we were being extremes. Obviously, I came back with no setting the field for a bad ball but putting some sweepers out as well just in case. The whole point of legislation is to avoid the disasters, the out of the ordinary, the Sara Sharifs. We were also told that a possible future home visit might deter parents from seeking help with a Section 31. Again, I cannot see why. These amendments are incredibly sensible and thoughtful, and their spirit would help those avoidable disasters, which, tragically, may well happen.
Lord Crisp is right that a broader debate about home education is overdue — this Bill alone is not the right vehicle for it. But the targeting in Amendment 121A is exactly right: proportionate safeguarding action focused on children who have been through formal child protection processes, not a blanket presumption against home educators.My Lords, I have also added my name to Amendment 121A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. This is a very important set of amendments. I welcome the fact that many of them are about strengthening safeguarding. That is really important. I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, because he had, as ever, some very important points to make. I do not agree with everything he said, but I agree that the time is ripe have a broader debate about a wider set of issues around the whole issue of home education that go outside the scope of this Bill. I hope it will be possible to do that. I also agreed with the noble Lord about the need for any safeguarding action to be proportionate, but it is my view that the targeting of action—as it is in Amendment 121A, so that “local authorities must consent to the withdrawal of a child from school” if they are involved in either child protection plans or are a child in need as classified under Section 17 of that Act—is proportionate in trying to provide additional support for vulnerable children and making sure that they do not fall through the cracks. We have heard too many times, over the years, these heartbreaking cases of children who have fallen through the cracks—the most recent one, of course, was the harrowing and terrible case of Sara Sharif—because of a lack of visibility. This amendment would ensure that greater visibility is given to these children, which is why I added my name to it. I know people have different views on this, but that is my reason for believing that it is a proportionate amendment.
Clause 31 and Amendment 120 are right to require local authority consent before a child is removed from school. Amendment 121A should go further still — the need for consent should also be triggered if a family is known to children's services through private law proceedings, not just if there is an ongoing Section 47 inquiry.My Lords, I support Clause 31 and government Amendment 120. I also support Amendment 121A, which would extend the scope of what Clause 31 seeks to achieve, which is to prevent concealment of the real reasons for attempts to withdraw children from school, in particular by parents or a parent with something to hide. The clause provides that the consent of the local authority is required if there is a Section 47 inquiry under way or there has been such an inquiry. Amendment 121A would extend the scope of the need for the local authority’s consent, which I support. However, if we are talking about cracks, I suggest that it could go further. The need for consent should also be triggered if the family court, in private law proceedings, has directed a report and investigation under Section 37 of the Children Act or has directed a local authority to report under Section 7. Experience shows, and certainly my experience is, that it is often in private law proceedings that alarm bells first ring. That is the first opportunity to investigate what really might be happening in the family home.
Education is compulsory; schooling is not — that distinction matters deeply to many parents. I support the principle of Amendment 121A, but it should also capture children who are a child in need because of abuse or neglect under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 — the Government's version expressly excludes them.My Lords, I support my noble friend’s sensible proposals in Amendment 121A—they obviously have cross-party support. The Bill proposes a power for local authorities to withhold consent to a child being removed from school in certain circumstances and my noble friend’s amendment would strengthen that principle by giving a local authority the power to refuse consent if a child has ever been subject to a child protection plan or if they are currently defined as a Section 17 child in need because of abuse or neglect. It is important to remember that although education in this country is compulsory, schooling is not. For some parents this is a very important principle, which is why I support other amendments supported by my noble friend to require a local authority to give its reasons for withholding consent and, importantly, to simplify the huge amount of information a parent choosing to educate their child at home currently has to provide. My noble friend Lord Lucas, who is in his place, asked an apposite question in Committee: “What is the Government’s purpose in seeking to be … so intrusive and punitive towards elective home education”—[Official Report, 20/5/25; col. 173.] in this Bill? The vast majority of parents do not choose home schooling for their children, but for those who do, it is an important freedom. I say to the Minister that I am flagging up a possible situation beyond this Bill. Although parents may choose home schooling, for some it is becoming not a principle but a necessity. I am looking at the parents of children with special needs who are forced into home schooling because the local authority cannot afford to provide for their child, or offers unacceptable alternatives, such as return journeys of 90 miles to a school every day or private tutoring in a public place. Of course this is outside the scope of the Bill, but it is a warning note because we may find that there then is established another category of home schooling for parents who have been…
It takes a village to raise a child — that is what we are grappling with here. Parents have a long-standing right to home-educate, but where home education becomes a way to hide a child from the state that right must be balanced against the child's safety. These amendments strike that balance proportionately.My Lords, I will be very brief. It is an old, apparently African, adage that it takes a village to raise a child, but it is no less true for that. What that captures in a few words is that raising a child is a balance: a partnership between the parents on the one hand and the wider community on the other. I think that is what we are trying to get at in this group of amendments: what are the appropriate powers for the state to have and what should be simply left to parents? It is a long-standing principle in this country that parents have the right to home-educate their children, but where that becomes a proxy for hiding the children from the state and putting them in a place where they are potentially at risk and at danger then clearly concerns must be raised. Having listened carefully to this debate, I will, if they are pressed to Divisions, support the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, in Amendment 121A and maybe later in Amendment 131A. They are probably as nuanced as we are going to get in a complex situation where we can all find bad balls for which we should not be setting the field.
The question is not whether the state may act but how it does so — not whether safeguarding matters but whether the systems we design can tell the difference between care and control, and between help and coercion. Where the Government have strengthened parliamentary scrutiny through the affirmative procedure I welcome that. But support for home-educating families must remain available, not become mandatory and a gateway to enforcement.My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 164B, 164C, 167A, 170A, 170B, 175ZD and 175ZE in my name. All these amendments are rooted in one concern, and we have had a lot of debate already that touches on this: that it is not whether the state may act, but how it does so. It is not whether safeguarding matters, because it does, but whether the systems we design can tell the difference between care and control, and between help and coercion. I welcome those of the Government’s amendments that strengthen scrutiny, including by using the affirmative procedure. That kind of restraint does not weaken authority; it makes it legitimate. Where I differ is where further processes, or compulsory steps, are placed on parents simply to complete a sequence. Support should be available, but it should not become mandatory and it should not become a gateway to enforcement.
The Bill requires the local authority to consider whether it would be in the child's best interests to attend school — but no child attends 'school' in the abstract: they attend a specific school. Some schools are excellent; others are not. There must be no automatic presumption that any school is better than home education. Amendment 175ZD is an important safeguard against exactly that presumption.My Lords, new Section 434A(6)(b)(i) asks the local authority to consider “that it would be in the child’s best interests to receive education by regular attendance at school”. But no child attends school: they attend a school. They might attend the school where the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, works—fine—or they might go to the school depicted in episode 2 of “Adolescence”. That would have me hoicking my child out in a millisecond, and there are a lot of schools like that. My noble friend’s Amendment 175ZD is therefore an important potential addition to the Bill. There should not be a presumption that any school is better than any home education, but that is where we are heading with this bit of the Bill. We are putting a duty on local authorities to judge and giving them the presumption that the child should be put into school. It is like buying IBM when I was young: it is the safe choice. If local authorities allow someone to be home educated, they are taking all the risks on themselves, but if they chuck the child into school, any school, there are no risks. So all the emphasis on how a local authority officer should behave is focused on pushing a child into school, whatever the circumstances. That is a deep fault in the Bill, and Amendment 122 from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, is the right solution to it. There should be some court oversight of the judgment of local authorities, otherwise there is a complete imbalance. We know how local authorities behave; they drive into the easy answers because that is life—I only have 70 years’ experience of it. Going for the safe answer is the natural, human thing to do, and you are asking a huge amount of a local authority to expect it to stand up against that. We must produce a countervailing force somewhere in the Bill. I would choose Amendment 122 from the amendments on offer, and I hope that the Government will see the wisdom of moving in that direction.
- We have come a long way. Any parent can currently remove a child from school with no notification at all. The Bill rightly requires registration. What matters is that all education — at home or in school — is of the best quality and that all children are safe. The new regime must be built on mutual trust, not presumption of guilt on the part of home educators.
My Lords, we have come a long way on the issue of home education and safeguarding. I want to start by thanking the Minister for her comments at the beginning of this group. I was also taken with the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, who reminded us that education is compulsory, but schooling is not. We want all our learning and education, whether it is in school or at home, to be the best that can be provided. We want our schools to be safe and we want children who are home educated to be safe. I remind the House of where we currently stand. Any parent can take their child out of school just like that: no notification or form-filling, they just take their child out. They take them to their home and apparently, hopefully, maybe or definitely home educate them—we do not know. There are some parents who are absolutely determined that their children get the best home education that they can give them. However, we also have situations at the other extreme, where, for example, unregistered fundamentalist religious schools have been closed down. They home educate children in small groups, because they are allowed to, and nobody knows what is going on in those schools. That cannot be and is not right. You can have a home educator who brings people in to enthuse and inspire; you can have home educators who link up with other home educators and organise summer camps or particular field trips. That is wonderful. However, at the other end, you can have a home education system where an individual is brought in to teach the children who might, for example, be a paedophile, and we would never know, because there are no safeguarding requirements. That is not the way that our education system should work. Our children, whether they are at home or in school, should be safeguarded and properly taught. They should learn and be inspired, enthused et cetera. I am of conscious of three amendments that are really important. I like the idea—although that is the wrong word—of Amendment 125 in t…
The national Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel looked at 41 home-educated children: six died, 35 suffered serious harm, half had never been to school and just over half had no agency involvement at the time. My Amendment 121A would include children who have ever been subject to care proceedings — even where no care order resulted, as in Sara Sharif's case — and children who are currently Section 17 children in need because of abuse or neglect. There are nearly 30,000 such children in the system right now, expressly excluded by the Government's draft. Amendment 131A requires a home visit where those conditions are met — because home is not always a safe space.My Lords, I shall start, where the noble Lord, Lord Storey, finished in recognising the work of Lord Soley, who devoted many years to this issue. I hope somewhere, in his retirement, he is aware of what is happening here. As we have discussed previously, there are at least three groups of families who educate their children at home: those who do so for philosophical reasons, where they make a positive choice; those who feel their children are struggling at school—many of whom, as we heard from my noble friend Lady Shephard, have special needs—and may not have chosen home education but believe it is in their best interests; and those whose children are faced with exclusion from school or other issues, where we are right to have concerns about their safety. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, whom I genuinely have huge respect for—I am grateful for the collaborative way he has worked on this Bill across the House—talked about serious case reviews, but two-thirds of serious case reviews are of children of preschool age, so we are not comparing apples with apples. The Government have introduced some very serious, albeit belated, and positive amendments, partly in response to the recommendations from the review of the death of Sara Sharif. Again, like the noble Lord, Lord Storey, we welcome government Amendments 125 and 131 in particular, which would pilot holding a meeting with parents before removing a child from school and giving the option of a visit within 15 days of a child starting home education. But in principle, we support almost all the government amendments in this group. However, government Amendments 120 and 131 leave material gaps, which I believe we have a duty to close. I was very fortunate to meet recently the authors of the Sara Sharif serious case review, Russell Wate and Jane Wonnacott, in their capacity as independent experts in this area. My revised amendments to Clauses 31 and 32 stem largely from that conversation and might have made a difference in her…
- I will focus on the detail rather than the broader arguments. On the group's amendments, the Government's Amendment 120 requires local authority consent where a child has been on a child protection plan within the previous five years. Amendment 121A goes further and the Government cannot accept it in its current form. On Amendment 131A, children who fall within its scope will already receive a home visit under the existing Section 47 provisions; the Government's Amendment 131 adds a further visit within 15 days for broader groups.
I will focus on the detail of the amendments in this group, rather than on some of the broader arguments made by noble Lords. Both on Second Reading and in Committee, we have talked about home education issues at considerable length.
- Is the Minister saying that when a local authority has just granted authority to parents — parents of children with trauma in their background — to take responsibility for their lives and education, fairly soon afterwards the state is going to second-guess them about whether they should be in school? That seems to be exactly what the Bill does.
Is the Minister saying that when a local authority has just granted authority to parents to take responsibility for life for what are difficult children with trauma in their background, fairly soon afterwards you are going to second-guess them about how they should do education? The Minister may say that it should be done softly, but essentially that is what she is saying—that she is going to make them jump through yet another hoop.
- No — that is not what I am saying. These are children who, almost by definition, will have gone through difficult and traumatic circumstances. A check within the five-year period ensures that staying at school would not serve them better. Parents in these cases are already well known to the local authority, so the check should be relatively quick.
No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that these are children who, almost by definition, will have gone through difficult and traumatic circumstances. Therefore, the opportunity within that five-year period to have the process for ensuring that they would not be better served by staying at school would serve those children well. I was about to say that, of course, those parents will already be well known to the local authority, and we would expect those checks to be relatively quick because the relevant information and relationship with the parents is already built. On Amendment 121A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I thank the noble Baroness as well as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and others for their constructive engagement last week. They have referenced the meeting they had with my officials on the detail of their amendment; of course, it was also with Steve Crocker, the non-executive board member for the department and former president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, and the DCS in Hampshire. The amendment would seek to extend the requirement to get permission to withdraw a child from school to home-educate them to a much broader group of children, including all children who are or who have ever been the subject of a child protection inquiry or child protection plan; those who are or have ever been the subject of proceedings relating to supervision or care orders; and those who are currently receiving support and services as a child in need under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989. We tabled our amendment to extend the requirement to children who have recently been discharged from child protection plans because we felt that five years was a reasonable period in which to expect a family to show sustainable change. Extending the timeframe to consider all children previously subject to a child protection inquiry or plan, and including those who have been subject to proceedings or are currently receiving support from chil…
- Before the Minister sits down — Lord Lucas suggested there are plenty of schools like the one depicted in episode two of 'Adolescence'. That drama is extraordinary fiction, not a documentary. Will the Minister confirm that the vast majority of our schools are not like that?
Before the noble Baroness sits down, I am slightly disappointed that she did not comment on something that I would like to hear from her. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for whom I have enormous admiration—particularly as he was very kind about Mossbourne just now—said that there are plenty of schools like the one in episode two of “Adolescence”. It really bugs me that, although “Adolescence” is an extraordinary piece of drama, it is now being taken as a documentary. It is a dystopian view of schools. Will the Minister assure the House that there are not plenty of schools like in episode two of “Adolescence”?
- Happily. Parents have the right to home-educate, but the idea that they are forced into it because the vast majority of schools are bad is simply wrong. The vast majority of our schools do a very good job — that is why the vast majority of children are educated in them and benefit from it.
I am more than happy to do that. The point we have raised consistently throughout this is that it is right that parents have the ability to home-educate their children, if that is what they choose to do, but the idea that they are forced to do that because the vast majority of our schools are bad is simply wrong. The vast majority of our schools do a very good job for children. That is why the vast majority of children are educated within them and benefit from that.
- I feel somewhat outnumbered. There is a real need for a proper, joined-up policy review on home education — these measures have arrived late and I think we will see unease and protest across the country. I remain willing to work with others to find solutions.
Sorry, my Lords, I did not realised that I have the chance to respond. I feel somewhat outnumbered on a number of the things that I said. I think there is a real need to have a proper look at policy about how all this fits together. I think we are going to come across quite a lot of unease and protest, in various ways, around the country as a result of some of these measures being brought in, perhaps at rather a late moment. Having said all that, I am very happy to work with others to try to find some solutions and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Child performers in the creative industries are bright and talented young people, and the licensing system that governs them is now a jungle. Amendments 127, 129 and 130 would ensure that school-registered child performers are excluded from the children-not-in-school register — so that performance opportunities are not classified as unauthorised absences and schools are not penalised in Ofsted ratings. The 2014 regulations have never been reviewed as promised; it is time to do so.My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 127, 129 and 130 in my name, which are supported by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson; I thank him for his support, as always. These amendments are on behalf of young performers in the fast-paced and flourishing entertainment industry. I congratulate all of the young people involved in films nominated for the BAFTA awards. I have worked closely with Spotlight, experts on international child performance licensing, and child licence co-ordinators, all of whom have a wealth of experience in dealing with child performers and the issues that surround them and their well-being; I thank them all for their hard work and commitment.
At 13 I played a French ghost in a children's television drama. I was paid £400 and my dad came along to make sure I kept up with homework. That opportunity might not have been possible under the Bill as currently drafted. The harder we make it for children from ordinary state-school backgrounds to take up these opportunities, the wider the gap becomes — BAFTA-nominated actors are still five times more likely to have attended a fee-paying school. Let us not widen that gap further.I have added my name in support of Amendments 127 and 129 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and outlined so eloquently by her just now. I also signed her amendments on a similar topic during earlier stages of the Bill, and I commend her for pursuing this important topic throughout its passage. I was unable to be here for the debates we had on this issue in Committee but followed the detailed exchanges that the noble Baroness had with the Minister then. I know that they have been talking fruitfully outside the Chamber as well, which I was glad to hear. Reading those earlier exchanges, however, I must say that I was struck by how thick the jungle of regulation has become in this area, and how hard it is as a consequence for parents and teachers of young people who are offered these important and beneficial experiences to help take up what can be truly life-changing opportunities for them. In a simpler era, I was somebody who benefited from such an opportunity. At the age of 13, I played a French ghost called Guillaume in a children’s television drama, broadcast on Halloween 1996. That opportunity came about by chance; the writer of the show had worked with some of the teachers at my state comprehensive. I think my casting had less to do with my acting prowess and more the fact I could do a passable French accent and bore a striking similarity to the chap who had been cast as the character who was to be my twin brother. It was an unforgettable and formative experience. We went to film it in a ruined chateau in Dijon, and I was paid the princely sum of £400, which will always be the most pleasing payslip I have ever received. Crucially, I was given the opportunity on the condition that I carried on my work, and my dad had to come with me to make sure that I did the homework and schoolwork that I missed while we were away filming. Looking at the forms and regulations that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, has highlighted, and the even more forbidding system t…
School-registered child performers will be excluded from the children-not-in-school registers — the Government will consult on that as part of the wider regulations consultation. We cannot accept Amendments 127 and 129 as drafted because they would exclude all child performers, including those who are home-educated. But we recognise the need to review the 2014 child performance regulations and are committed to doing so, building on the meeting the noble Baroness had with the Minister last September.I feel that this group is becoming something of a confessional. It is very interesting to hear noble Lords’ backgrounds. The thing I love about this House is that noble Lords can bring their personal experiences, which makes the debate so rich. I expected it from the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, but it is very interesting to have other experiences coming into the Chamber. This is a very important group of amendments about making sure that the registration system works, that it captures the appropriate children and that it does not in any way undermine young people’s ambitions. That is a very good point. Amendments 127 and 129, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, would exclude all child performers from inclusion in the children not in school registers. I thank the noble Baroness for her productive engagement with the department and my noble friend the Minister on these issues that she obviously cares very passionately about. I think that she agrees that home-educated child performers should remain in scope of the registers. For that reason, we cannot accept the noble Baroness’s amendment, which would exclude all child performers from the registers. However, I am pleased to confirm that the Government intend to exclude school-registered child performers from the scope of the registers and will consult on this position as part of our wider consultation on the content of the regulations. I hope that that gives her the reassurance that she has been seeking in her conversations with us. Amendment 130, also tabled by the noble Baroness, seeks to place a duty on local authorities to ensure that any children taking part in a performance, and who are not captured on the children not in school register, are registered under the existing child performance regulations. I appreciate the noble Baroness’s desire to ensure that children can take part in performance opportunities while also ensuring that appropriate safeguards are in place. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson,…
- Overjoyed — we are breaking down barriers for child performers today and in the future. Thank you to the Minister and her team for all the work behind the scenes.
My Lords, I am overjoyed. I am so happy for the child performers of today and the future, because we are breaking down barriers that might prevent them having an exciting experience in the creative industry. I thank the Minister for partially accepting my amendments; I am most grateful for that. Once again, I thank her and her team for the hard work which has gone on behind the scenes for us to get to this point. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for his support—and for giving us an insight into his career; it was interesting to hear that from him. I also want to take the opportunity to thank the Minister for her clear commitment to reviewing the regulations that govern child performing, both in this country and abroad. The creative industries are a source of great pride to our country, but at their very heart must be the well-being of the children who contribute so much to their success. I am therefore grateful to the Minister for recognising this and that the existing framework must keep pace with the realities of the modern world we live in. It is so important that we do that for our children. I particularly welcome the Minister’s assurance that the review will be undertaken in close collaboration with industry colleagues and those with front-line experience. It is important that we listen to what they say; they are at the forefront of what is going on in the lives of children who are performers. Working together this way is essential if we are to strike the right balance, enabling opportunity and creativity while ensuring robust safeguards that protect children’s welfare, education and long-term prospects. I look forward to continuing working with the Minister and her officials. The job is not done—there is a lot further to go. For that commitment and the constructive spirit in which this work will be undertaken and move forward, I sincerely offer my gratitude and beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.
My Amendment 134A addresses a real danger: as currently drafted, the register would include the name and address of both parents. Where a father has perpetrated serious sexual or violent acts and the family has separated, the offending parent must not be able to use register access to locate the mother and child. The register should list only parents who are actively taking responsibility for the child's education.My Lords, I will be speaking in this group on Amendments 134A, 139 and 140. At this stage, I should draw your Lordships’ attention to Amendment 135A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. The very first part of this amendment is almost identical to my Amendment 134A. However, in the second part—which is a rather longer part—of Amendment 135A, which deals with the problem of excessive information being sought from home-schooling parents, the noble Baroness and noble Lord deal with it much more extensively than I do in my Amendments 139 and 140, but it is on the same subject. Before I speak to my Amendment 134A, I should like to acknowledge the good progress that has been made on home-schooling issues in the three or four years that I have been involved in them in your Lordships’ House. First, there has been very good progress on the register, which is now to be called the not in school register. That is most welcome. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, may remember that, with the previous Government’s Bill, I made it quite plain that I have always supported the institution of that register. Secondly, I acknowledge the recognition that home schooling should not be secret, and that the local authority should know what home schooling is taking place. Thirdly, there is the recognition, which has come out now, of the role of the local authority to assist home-schooling parents. That was very well covered in the second bullet point on page 8 of my noble friend’s letter of 7 January and was even better covered by the Minister’s excellent and helpful speech at the beginning of group 3 during our present deliberations on Report. This enables me to go, on a strong basis, to my Amendment 134A—previously Amendment 135. Its purpose is to protect a home-schooling parent and child from an offending other parent—for example, a father who has perpetrated serious sexual acts on the child, the parents having separated and now living in different abodes.…
- How information about children and families is collected, used, retained and acted on matters enormously. There will not be one national register but over 150 local ones — the risk of data security failures somewhere in that network is real. My amendments require data protection safeguards, proper data-retention limits, independent appeal routes for parents, and annual anonymised statistics on how the registers operate.
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in my name in this group, namely Amendments 148A, 148B, 148D, 148E, 153A, 155A, 161D and 174A. Together, they are concerned with one question: how information about children and families is collected, used, retained and acted on under the Bill. Again, I begin by recognising that the Government have shown restraint where Ministers have strengthened scrutiny, tightened procedures and limited the scope for open-ended regulation-making, and it deserves acknowledgement. My amendments in this group are animated by a single concern: if Parliament is minded to create a register, it must be tightly bounded, purpose-limited and structured so that it does not normalise suspicion or routine burden and data sought must be proportionate to serving a legitimate aim and narrowly tailored. It must not indirectly discriminate against or unduly burden parents who choose to home educate when compared with children attending recognised schools. Amendments 148A and 148B concern data use and data governance. The true risk of a register lies not only in what it collects but in what that information becomes over time. Data once shared rarely contracts. Once repurposed, it rarely remains confined to its original purpose. We are collecting quite a lot of data here on quite a lot of sensitive matters. Some have argued that this is really a kind of digital ID by the back door, which I do not think many of our citizens are very enamoured of right now. Amendment 148A would draw a clear statutory boundary. It would provide that information may be shared only where necessary and proportionate for the education or welfare of the individual child, and it must not be repurposed for population-level profiling, predictive modelling, automated risk scoring or speculative secondary uses. This is not hostility to safeguarding, it is respect for trust. Safeguarding will collapse when families believe that information given for one reason will be later used for anoth…
- The Government have made significant improvements — the 15-day reporting requirement is gone, and the list of required information has been cut back — and I am grateful. Amendment 135A reflects the same concern as Lord Hacking's amendments: only parents actively responsible for the child's education need be recorded, and any follow-up request for further information should be a two-step process triggered by reasonable cause, not automatic.
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 135A in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Before doing so, I once again thank the Minister for having reduced the requirements in this section considerably—I am very pleased not to have to comment on whether Scouts, rugby clubs, cricket clubs or anything are included—and getting rid of the 15-day requirement to report. Those are significant improvements. In terms of process, I shall just pick up on one point, which I raised earlier, so I will not speak at length on it, about how this process of putting information on the register fits in with the annual reporting process that happens in an awful lot of authorities. That may be a local issue rather than a national one, but I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response on that. Amendment 135A from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is largely heading in the same direction as the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. I think it is proportionate. I think it is important that proposed new subsection (3) states: “Nothing … prevents a local authority from requesting further information … where the authority has reasonable cause to believe that a child may not be receiving a suitable education”. In other words, it is a two-step process so that one does not automatically assume that the parents are guilty, as it were, because there would be a two-step process before the local authority asks for more information. I shall draw out one point that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, made, which is that not all parents need to be recorded on the register, only those who are taking responsibility for the education of the child. That is entirely in keeping with where we are currently, in that to withdraw a child from registration to school, you need only one parent’s signature. It seems to me that, in putting them on the register in this way, you only need those parents who are taking responsibility. It is not necessary to involve other parents, including those who m…
- My amendments pull in two slightly different directions. The main thrust — shared with Lord Crisp and Lord Hacking — is to simplify the detail required on the register. But I also want the register to be able to record, in future, information about care and supervision order applications, where there is a clear logic for capturing it.
My Lords, my amendments in this group pull in two slightly different directions. If the Minister and her officials are confused, I apologise, but I will try to explain why. The main thrust of my amendments, as the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Hacking, both said, is to try to simplify the amount of specific detail required to be held on the register in future. I too very much welcome the Government’s decision to simplify a lot of the information that was in the original draft of the Bill and to leave a bit more room for professional curiosity on the part of the home education team in the local authority. My Amendments 135A, 135B and 146A all point in this direction and give the Government different options—a pick-and-mix menu to achieve this end. Amendment 146B would make it clear that a local authority can request further information where it believes that a child might not be receiving a suitable education or that their welfare may be at risk. In the other direction is my Amendment 143B— I hope the Minister will be able to address this specifically when she sums up—which would establish a duty to record information relating to care proceedings. I think that is missing from the current list, but the Minister will tell me whether I am right or wrong on that. This would include information relating not just to the child but to their siblings. We are all aware of cases where siblings or half-siblings are in care proceedings, perhaps if they are babies or under five, but an older child might not be. It feels highly relevant, if a child is going to be taken out of school, that the local authority has that level of concern about other children in the family. I hope the Minister feels able to accept that and perhaps bring back a government amendment at Third Reading.
- Local authorities need the full information the registers require in order to assess whether a child's education is suitable. Reducing the scope would make those assessments significantly harder. On Lord Hacking's specific concern: there is no power for parents to access register information about their own children — we have thought carefully about subject access requests from estranged parents and the safeguards are robust. The system is still incredibly light-touch compared to what most other countries mandate.
My Lords, as noble Lords have noted, the amendments in this group are all about how we reduce the burden on parents of providing information for children not in school registers while maintaining the purpose of those registers. As I said in the previous group, I have taken seriously noble Lords’ views that the provisions as drafted in the Bill were too onerous for parents. At the same time, it is important to remember that the system we are proposing is still incredibly light-touch relative to what is mandated in many other countries. I turn to the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Hacking—134A, 139, 140 and 141—and Amendments 135A and 135B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. These would remove certain information requirements or replace them with more limited alternatives. It is essential that local authorities have the information they need to assess whether a child’s education is suitable and full-time. I fully appreciate the intention behind these amendments, but reducing the scope of information would, in practice, make those assessments significantly harder. It is also vital that safeguarding information and other relevant information on registers be recorded consistently. Recent safeguarding and serious case reviews have shown how often opportunities to identify children suffering or at risk of significant harm are missed when information is fragmented or incomplete. However, I hope I can provide some reassurance to my noble friend Lord Hacking about access for parents in the sort of circumstances he identified. There are no powers for parents to access information on their children. We have thought this through very carefully, particularly from the perspective of victims of domestic abuse and other forms of abuse. For example, we have considered whether the estranged parent could make a subject access request to acquire information. Local authorities are strictly required to have clear and well-defined processes to help staff handle such req…
- I thank the Minister — she and her officials have thought carefully about this. But I remain unconvinced by the conclusion. I hope she and her officials will look again at my concern about protecting a home-educating mother from an offending father who might gain access to the register to locate them.
I thank my noble friend the Minister. She and her officials have clearly thought very carefully about the provisions of this Bill and have come to some conclusions. My difficulty is that I think they have come to the wrong conclusions, and I would therefore be very grateful—and I will be withdrawing my amendment—if my noble friend and her officials looked carefully at what I argued relating to my two sets of amendments. If there is any way they can find to accommodate my concerns, I would be very grateful. The central point is that what I proposed in both sets of amendments was a safe way of doing it, and it must be the safe way of doing it: changing the drafting on page 58 of the Bill from the “home address of each parent of the child” to each parent or parents who have responsibility for their education. That is the safe way of dealing with that. Likewise, on the amount of information being sought from home-schooling parents, my amendment is the safe way of doing it. I am asking the Minister and her officials to look at the safe way relating to both sets of amendments, but having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
- Government Amendment 144 removes a reference to further education institutions so that regulations can require local authorities to record any educational institution a registered child attends — broadening the picture authorities receive. Amendment 146 adds young carers to the register: we heard testimony in Committee about children as young as eight or nine effectively caring for multiple family members while nominally home-educated.
The government amendments in this group seek to strengthen the support and engagement local authorities offer to families who wish to home educate. As my noble friend the Minister said during Committee, it is vital that local authorities build constructive relationships with parents. Such relationships are the most effective way for local authorities to understand a child’s education and circumstances and to identify any support families may want or require. The Department for Education is committed to fostering these partnerships wherever possible. Government Amendment 144 would amend Section 436C(2)(j) to remove the specific reference to institutions in the further education sector. This would ensure that the department can require local authorities, via regulations, to record information about any education institution a registered child is attending or has attended in the past where the local authority has the information or can reasonably obtain it. Such information could be beneficial to include on registers because a history of establishments attended will give local authorities a clearer idea of the child’s circumstances and educational history. This understanding will enable the local authority to offer and provide more bespoke support to the child. For those parents who feel forced into home education, a record of previous schools attended would also give the local authority insight into which settings parents were dissatisfied with. Further analysis of this information could reveal where there may be gaps in support for parents within the school system, enabling the local authority or central government to take action. Government Amendment 146 would make it clear that information on young carers may be prescribed for inclusion in children not in school registers. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for raising this important matter in Committee, and the Carers Trust for its tireless work on ensuring that young carers are identified and supported. As my no…
- My Amendment 160 would require local authorities to ensure that home-educated children can access public examination centres. There is a real postcode lottery here — post-Covid, many private examination centres have closed and the gap has never been filled. A child driving hundreds of miles and paying hundreds of pounds to sit an exam is not an acceptable situation.
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 160. As I did in the last group, I start by saying that I am grateful to the Minister and her colleagues for having moved in some way on the information provided about exams, and for setting up a forum; it will be interesting to see how that operates. I am also very sympathetic to Amendment 161A from the noble Lord, Lord Wei, in which he proposes setting up a proper forum where parents are asked to take some responsibility for the relationship. That seems quite a positive, and maybe a longer-term, way forward.
- Thank the Government for Amendment 146 putting carers on the register. On exam access, there is a severe postcode lottery: in Cornwall and large parts of northern England home-educated children are travelling extraordinary distances at great cost simply to sit GCSEs. Amendment 160 and Amendment 175ZC are the golden thread — exam access for every home-educated child who wants it.
My Lords, I rise, first, to thank the Government, on behalf of myself and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for bringing forward Amendment 146, putting carers on the register. We heard moving testimony in Committee about some incredibly young carers aged eight, nine or 10 looking after several members of their families—siblings and parents. In some cases, they were apparently being home-educated, but from the point of view of the adults they were caring for, looking after them took priority. That is why it is so important and so helpful that they will be recorded. I also support my noble friend Lord Crisp and Amendment 175ZC from the noble Lord, Lord Wei, which is along the same lines—it is for children who are coming to the final parts of their home education and will, one hopes, take and pass exams. There is a real postcode lottery, particularly post-Covid, in access to examination centres. In parts of the country such as Cornwall or large parts of the north of England, it is extraordinarily difficult for parents to access examination centres for their children. In some cases, they have to travel one and a half to three hours to go to them. In many cases, their children are not taking a single paper; they might be taking three or four papers for mathematics, so they have to go back and forth. Some of those children will have some challenging behaviours and may find that an examination centre is not an environment that they are entirely comfortable in. Having it within reasonable reach and access of where one lives is exceptionally important. For those reasons, I hope that the Minister will think carefully about this and look at some of the facts and figures. The charity, Education Otherwise, has looked into this in great detail and has a lot of really quite useful and compelling information. I hope that if the department is prepared to look at that, it might be able to think again.
- These amendments reach into the kitchens and living rooms of parents doing their best for children whose needs do not fit neatly into the school system. Parliament must act with care when it does so. Amendment 161A would create a proper advisory forum for home-educating families, where parents share responsibility for the relationship with local authorities. Amendments 175ZA, 175ZB and 175ZC would ensure that local authorities signpost exam access and — where no access is available locally — open a dialogue with local schools about providing it.
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 161A, 175ZA, 175ZB and 175ZC in my name. These amendments sit in a part of the Bill that would be felt most sharply not in Whitehall but in kitchens and living rooms by parents doing their best for children whose needs do not fit neatly in the school system. When Parliament reaches into family life, it has to do so with care, because it is easy to create a framework that looks reasonable on paper and yet breathes mistrust in practice. Again, I want to acknowledge at the outset the Government’s movement in this group. Government Amendment 158 recognises the reality of exam access and ensures that information about GCSE routes can be provided to parents who ask for it. Amendment 159 creates a regular forum for parents to raise concerns and discuss how this regime operates. Amendment 161 tidies the drafting around exam-related provisions. These are sensible steps. They start to show an understanding that families need information and a channel of engagement, and I welcome them. Yet there remains a gap between permission and protection. Information may be offered, but access can still fail, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and others. A forum may be held, but families can still feel unheard when nothing changes. These amendments in my name aim to close that gap with light-touch safeguards that strengthen legitimacy and reduce conflict. With the Government having shown that they are listening, I think that many of us hope that, on these quite non-contentious amendments, they will also come back with suggested changes to the Bill, as well as afterwards in the statutory guidance, to understand these realities. Amendment 161A would require each local authority to establish a home education parental advisory board, composed primarily of parents with recent experience of elective home education in the area. We are not trying to create new bureaucracy for its own sake; it is about a practical feedback loop. Families most a…
- Exam access is the golden thread. The rosy picture of parents being signposted to happy centres where children can sit exams does not match reality. Amendment 175ZC provides a clean solution — require local authorities to ensure access, not merely to mention it.
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendments 160 and 175ZC, which we have heard so much about. The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, when talking to Amendment 158, painted a very rosy picture of parents being signposted to happy centres where their children could all take wonderful exams and obviously achieve enormous success. However, the reality, from what I have seen and heard, is a very different thing. Amendment 175ZC provides a very clean solution. Access to exams is the golden thread. We want as many of our students to succeed—they have to do their exams. If they are driving hundreds of miles, that is not going to work. I genuinely think that working in partnership with local state schools would be quite a simple thing. There is always room in an exam hall for an extra 10 people, and you have the invigilators already. It would be a very simple thing, so I urge the Government to accept these amendments.
- The support duty in this Bill is the first ever statutory duty on local authorities to provide support specifically for home-educating families. We cannot accept Amendment 160 or Amendment 175ZC as drafted because mandating local authorities to fund exam access goes beyond what we can commit to. But local authorities should be sources of support, and the government information-sharing provisions will help families discover what examination opportunities exist in their area.
I thank noble Lords for their very considered comments, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for bringing his experience into the Chamber. I thank him for the considerate way that he has approached this. I hope we will continue to have a constructive dialogue as we move forward on these important issues. Amendment 160, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and Amendments 161A and 175ZC tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to require local authorities to act supportively towards, and establish advisory boards of, home-educating families, and ensure that home-educated children can access examinations. As I said at the beginning of this group, local authorities should be sources of support for home-educating families. Noble Lords’ engagement has been constructive and I reassure them that this will be further strengthened by the support duty in the Bill, which is the first ever duty on local authorities to provide support specifically for home-educating families, as well as the government amendments in this group, which clarify that information on GCSE exam access should be provided as part of the support duty and require local authorities to arrange biannual engagement forums, as we have discussed. We also recognise the importance of ensuring that parents are responsible for bearing the costs of any exams they may enter their child for before they make the decision to withdraw them from school. This is something already made clear in the department’s Elective Home-education guidance and which we would expect to be discussed as part of the mandatory meetings pilots that my noble friend described earlier. To expand on this, while some of these things seem straightforward, they are more involved than perhaps has been suggested. The question is: why can we not require local authorities to find exam centres for all home-educated students? This would involve a local authority forcing a state school or college to accommodate a home-educated pupil. We do not think this…
- I welcome this provision of information. But if a local authority gathers data and finds there is literally no exam access locally, can there not be a dialogue with local schools — not forcing them, but exploring whether space exists? Could we have a letter continuing that conversation?
I welcome this timely provision of information for families. I speak for myself, but Peers here have also spoken about the need for exam access and would not want to burden state or other schools that have completely full exam halls. I wonder whether, maybe through a letter, we could have a further conversation with the department about this. As that information is gathered and you discover what access there is in a local authority, if there literally is none for exams, could there not be some dialogue with the local schools? This would not be to force them to do anything they cannot do, or cannot afford to do, but just to ask how many spare desks they have in their exam halls, which they probably will be able to tell you very quickly. Then, that will allow conversations to happen about creating something in the area, which often may be absent, as we found.
- That is exactly what we are proposing — a dialogue with local schools about what exam-board options exist. If the noble Lord had been able to have that conversation earlier, it might have saved him a long journey. We will ensure that kind of information sharing happens.
I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. This is exactly what we are proposing: there needs to be that dialogue, to have a better understanding of what is—or is not—available locally. The noble Lord mentioned his own circumstance, having to travel a long distance. Perhaps if he had been able to have a conversation about which exam boards operate in his local area, that might have made a difference. That situation, of the offer from different exam boards, is unique to England, which obviously means different syllabuses—which has an impact. The earlier conversations we are proposing will hopefully bring that out. It is difficult to be too prescriptive at this point, because of the different circumstances in different localities. It is for those areas to make clear what provision they are able to make. In relation to Amendment 175ZC, it is also important to highlight that the Equality Act 2010 already places a statutory duty on awarding organisations to provide reasonable adjustments for disabled students in exams and assessments. This applies to all learners, irrespective of whether they attend a school or are home-educated. I hope that answers the point the noble Lord, Lord Wei, raised about equalities. Amendment 175ZA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to ensure that home-educated children and families are not unfairly disadvantaged or subjected to additional administrative and evidential requirements. Of course, we agree that home-educating families and children should not be unfairly disadvantaged. However, the reality is that many services are accessible to children through their school. When a family makes the choice to electively home-educate, they are opting out of this system. This is why our guidance is clear that parents should ensure that they are fully informed about home education before they enter into it. There are existing duties under equalities law to ensure that organisations do not discriminate, and our guidance is clear that any requ…
- My Amendment 175A is a repeat of the one tabled in Committee. Clause 37 will, in practice, regulate yeshivas as educational institutions for the first time, yet the equality impact assessment itself names the Haredi Jewish community as uniquely affected. In a post-7 October climate, when Jewish communities across the UK feel particularly threatened, we must not legislate in a way that is perceived — however unintentionally — as targeting their faith institutions. Boys in their teenage years after bar mitzvah traditionally combine home education with religious instruction at a yeshiva. These are not schools and cannot be turned into schools without destroying their religious purpose.
My Lords, this amendment is a repeat of one that I tabled in Committee, to which my right reverend friend the Bishop of Oxford spoke in my absence. I am deeply grateful to him, and to the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Marks of Hale, who have added their names to it on Report. My concerns with the Bill in its current form relate to those noted in the equality impact assessment, which singled out and named the particular issues that might arise for the Haredi Jewish community. As a Lord spiritual, I see my role as including speaking out when members of another religious community’s beliefs and practices are at stake. Among several groups within Judaism, the practice for boys—it is just boys we are talking about here—during their teenage years after their bar mitzvahs, is a combination of home schooling alongside religious instruction, the latter being provided by a yeshiva. At present, yeshivas are not treated as educational institutions, but the Bill makes it likely that they will be in future. We need to reflect that we are legislating at a time when, after 7 October 2023, Jewish communities here in the UK, and in many other parts of the world, feel particularly threatened and vulnerable. The steep rise in antisemitic crimes is making some people I know who have been long committed to Britain wonder whether they are still welcome and safe in the UK. New laws that threaten their long-standing traditions simply play into that fear. The Jewish community—I went to school among Jewish boys—is a precious and vital constituent of British life. I sincerely believe that we must make every possible effort to allay their fears. In working on this amendment, I have become more aware than ever that there are different voices and practices, even among the ultra-Orthodox communities. I do not pretend to speak for all of them, but those I have met with have given me assurances. For example, they have no problem with the institutions that their boys attend being in scope for safe…
The Government cannot condemn violence and bans against Jewish people and in the same breath ban their faith institutions. Clause 37 consciously seeks to close down or fundamentally alter yeshivas — the only faith community the Government's own analysis singles out. Yeshivas are safe, safeguarded institutions; they are not schools and cannot be made into schools without destroying their religious purpose.My Lords, I support Amendment 175A. The Government and the Secretary of State for Education in particular have rightly been vocal in confronting antisemitism in education, but that commitment must extend beyond condemning violence or bans towards Jews. The Government cannot condemn violence and bans against Jewish people and then ban or close down their faith institutions. The Government make no secret of the fact that Clause 37 consciously seeks to close down or entirely alter yeshivas. In their analysis of the Bill since its launch, the only faith community they ever mention is the strictly Orthodox Jewish one. The Bill leaves no lawful space for long-established religious institutions, which provide only religious instruction and operate alongside registered home education. Yeshivas are safe and safeguarded institutions. They are not schools. They do not provide academic education and cannot be turned into schools without destroying their religious purpose. They exist to inculcate a lived faith. That some noble Lords may raise an eyebrow at that purpose says more about the distance of our own society from faith traditions than about the yeshivas themselves. Alongside attending yeshivas, these boys are home-schooled. That home education is serious and improving. I have seen their new communal platforms personally, and they are now in active use. The amendment before the House is narrow and proportionate. It ensures the continued safeguarding of yeshivas; requires registered home education, regulated, of course, by the local authority; and prevents the misclassification of religious institutions. In short, it allows the Government to achieve their aims of maintaining child welfare and education while recognising the lawful set-up of the Haredi Jewish community. Report is the final opportunity to correct this in primary legislation. To use biblical imagery, the Government’s heart and lips must be aligned. The Haredi Jewish community and its yeshivas must continue to…
The Bill is not trying to abolish yeshivas. All children deserve access to a broad and balanced curriculum; that principle must apply across all faith communities equally — if we accommodate one religious group's request for exemption, we must be ready to do so for any other. We value faith schools and faith-based education, but there have to be some limits, and Clause 37 sets a proportionate one.My Lords, I wish to speak against Amendment 175A. It is tabled in the same way as it was in Committee, but I accept that it was the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford rather than the right reverend Prelate Bishop of Manchester who spoke to it on that occasion. I do not want to rehearse all those arguments again. It was a good debate, so I will perhaps sum them up and express a few further points. The Bill is not trying to abolish yeshivas; that is not the intent of the legislation. I join both speakers so far in saying that I cherish and welcome the fact that we are a country that values education for all children and allows people of all faiths to reflect that faith in their own education. I have, sometimes at my own political expense, defended the state system, which has Roman Catholic schools, Church of England schools and many other schools. Politically, there are many people who think that we ought to not have faith schools at all. I have always defended them, because that is an important tenet of a free society, and I value the contribution they make to our lives. I feel the same about people of any faith. This is not about the Orthodox Jewish faith. The amendment could be used by people of any faith to start a school and have 10 hours a day of religious instruction and home education in the evening. That point is very clear. However, I am opposed to the way some faiths are organising their education at the moment. Without rehearsing the arguments, it comes down quite simply to this: if a child, maybe under 11, is in a yeshiva or any other school—but the yeshiva has been the one that has been mentioned—from 8 am to 6 pm, I do not believe that they can be home educated effectively in the evening. I do not think that is what we are about. If we take faith out of that and think of the needs of the child, we cherish our differences, but we are only a cohesive society if we cherish the things that we hold together. One of the “samenesses” of our society is…
- This Bill sets clear expectations for people who choose to educate outside the school system — that is right and honourable. But the Minister should pick a time period and engage with the Haredi community before these provisions come into force; a constructive, time-limited engagement could resolve the tension without the amendment.
My Lords, I do not read this amendment in the same way as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, does, but I will come to that. I start with renewed thanks to the Minister for the time that she and her officials have given to me and thanks to the right reverend Prelate for tabling this amendment. This Bill exemplifies how we are setting clear expectations of the standards that we should set for people who choose to educate their children outside the school system. We should not be ashamed of that. This is an honourable and right thing to do. My main answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, is that, if they are not achieving home education, they are in trouble. There must be home education which is up to the standard we think it should be. If not, it will be in contravention of this Bill. However, that does not appear to be the problem, at least with the Haredi communities that I have been in correspondence with. We have principles—and they have principles—about how children should be educated. The Prime Minister and others in government have made much of their respect and care for our Jewish communities. It would not be consistent with those statements to tip hundreds of families within the Haredi community into conflict with the state and courts without doing our best to reconcile their views on education and ours. However, tipping them into conflict is what this Bill in its raw form does, as the Government’s own impact statement accepts. The Haredi community, for all the differences between its ancient traditions and our secular ways, is entirely worthy of our care and respect. It is law-abiding. It makes a positive contribution to our economy. Its children lead productive and fulfilling lives. There is clearly a lot of good going on. We should therefore step back from the punitive approach that this Bill allows for and enter a process of building a mutual understanding. What does Haredi education achieve in practice? What exactly are their religious red lines? What a…
- Clause 37 extends to full-time settings the same registration and inspection regime that independent schools already operate under. It is categorically not the Government's intention to close yeshivas. The flexible regulatory regime in the Education and Skills Act 2008 permits different standards to be prescribed for different types of setting — no decision on which standards will apply to yeshivas has yet been taken, and any decision will follow extensive consultation. I assure the Haredi community that this is not a denigration of their faith.
As other noble Lords have done, I first thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for bringing forward Amendment 175A. Of course, this amendment was previously tabled in Committee and debated extensively then. For reasons of time, I will not repeat that debate. However, I agree with my noble friend Lady Morris that support for this clause is absolutely not a failure to recognise the significance of faith-based education across a range of faiths in our country. My noble friend is right, and she has championed and supported this, even in the face of opposition. I assure the Haredi community that it is neither a denigration of their faith nor of the way in which they wish to express it in a plural England, where I very much hope they feel able to be, and remain, a full part of our community. It may assist the House if I clarify the purpose and effect of Clause 37 and the Government’s general approach in this area. In so doing, I will attempt to answer the questions raised by the right reverend Prelate. Clause 37 starts from the position that, if a setting is providing full-time education to children of compulsory school age, it should be regulated and subject to oversight. I trust that there is broad support across the House for this principle. Clause 37 therefore extends to more settings the regulatory regime found in Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Education and Skills Act 2008. I reiterate that it is categorically not the Government’s intention to close down yeshivas. This is the same ready-made, flexible and effective system of regulation that independent schools have been able to operate within for many years, including those with a primary faith ethos. Let me be clear: there is nothing in this clause that, in itself, requires impacted settings to become schools or to operate identically to other settings already regulated by this regime. What the clause does do, in broad terms, is subject impacted full-time settings to a regime of registration and the…
- There have to be limits to what any faith community can do. But I believe we can achieve appropriate regulation while preserving space for bona fide institutions that produce wholesome young people. Reassured by the Minister's commitments, I withdraw the amendment.
My Lords, I am grateful to all who have taken part. I will not delay us long. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, that there have to be some limits to what a faith community can do. I believe we can achieve that if we work hard over the next few months on how these kinds of institutions are going to be regulated. We can make sure we are providing space for bona fide organisations that are clearly having the outcome of producing wholesome young people without opening the floodgates to all sorts of negative patterns of upbringing that we might wish to be wary of. I am hugely grateful for the reassurances received and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
- Government Amendments 176 to 183 and 185 clarify the material change regime for independent schools: building works at a school's already-registered address will no longer require Secretary of State approval, removing the bike-shed problem. Amendment 184 strengthens Ofsted's warrant powers to inspect and seize documentary evidence at suspected illegal unregistered schools, with independent judicial oversight required before documents are taken.
We have moved slightly faster than I expected us to move, which I am sure is greatly welcomed by most Members of your Lordships’ House. I begin with the group of amendments concerning Clause 40. Government Amendments 176 to 183 and 185 principally concern the Bill’s provisions on the material change regime, which governs the type of change that independent schools require Secretary of State approval to make. When the Bill was first published, concern was raised that minor or secondary changes, such as bike sheds or classroom conversions, would be unnecessarily captured if changes of buildings at a school’s already registered address were treated as material changes. The Government have listened to these concerns and the amendments now make clear that building changes at a school’s registered address do not require material change approval. Importantly, the same principle applies to any additional addresses that the department registers after approving a change of building. Further changes of building at these addresses will not be treated as material changes. These amendments take a proportionate approach. They reflect that a registered school making use of new or unfamiliar addresses may be placing pupils at higher risk of harm. Under these changes, the focus will be on any addresses beyond the school’s registered address and any additional addresses registered following an approved change of buildings where there is no prior assurance that standards are met. In addition, these amendments clarify that only changes to how an institution providing special education is specially organised constitute a material change and require ministerial approval. Actions taken solely to meet an individual pupil’s needs do not constitute a material change. The Government have worked closely with interested parties to ensure that the original policy intent is properly captured. It is right that, where independent schools make changes to their operations that may place children at ri…
- On Amendment 184, what exactly is 'excluded material' or 'special procedure material'? If an inspector enters an unregistered school on warrant, can they immediately access a pupil register or progress file, or must they seek a further warrant before doing so?
My Lords, I have a quick question for the Minister on Amendment 184, which she described towards the end of her speech. I agree with the purpose of this and most of the details, but I am not quite sure what is meant by “excluded material” or “special procedure material”. Is that anything to do with data protection? If it is an unregistered school, would the inspector be able to go in and seize, copy or have access to a register or pupil progress file without having to go and get a warrant? If they gain access and then have to go and get a warrant before they can see the register or the pupil progress information, they are not going to be able to do their job effectively—but that hangs on what is meant by “special procedure material” and “excluded material”. Does that include things such as school registers?
- I will write to Lady Morris on the details of Amendment 184 — and yes, we have had extensive discussions with Ofsted on these provisions to make sure they enable Ofsted to do what the Bill strengthens its ability to do. I will copy the letter to anyone who wants it and place a copy in the Library.
Perhaps I could come back to my noble friend Lady Morris on the details of that particular question; I am sorry that I cannot respond to it now. I welcome the welcome provided to the Government’s amendments in this group. I also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that we have had extensive discussions with Ofsted about the provisions we are proposing here to make sure they enable Ofsted to do what this Bill is strengthening its ability to do.
- When the Minister writes, please copy us in as well — it would be very useful to understand.
When the Minister gets back to her noble friend, could she also copy us in with that information? It would be quite useful to understand as well.
- Ofsted has always told me the barrier to prosecuting illegal schools is getting the evidence. Has the Minister confirmed with Ofsted that this wording achieves what is needed?
Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, has taken the words out of my mouth. This is an issue that I have felt strongly about for a number of years. I know from talking to Ofsted that one of the barriers has always been getting the evidence. I presume that the Minister has had detailed discussions with Ofsted and that, as a result, this wording fulfils what needs to be done. I hope the Minister will confirm that.
- Up to one in five teachers and one in three head teachers are currently facing a complaint — social media and AI are making it easy to draft lengthy, targeted complaints with minimal effort. Amendment 190 would remove the ability of the Teaching Regulation Agency to investigate conduct that occurred before someone entered teaching, and Amendment 191A would extend the right to be accompanied at disciplinary hearings to a professional representative — not just a union colleague — for the roughly half of teachers who are not union members.
My Lords, the issue of complaints against teachers is changing considerably, particularly with the advent of social media and AI, which can be used to identify and draft lengthy complaints which schools have to respond to. I understand that up to one in five members of the teaching workforce are currently facing a complaint, rising to one in three of our head teachers. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, for signing Amendment 190 in my name and to the National Education Union for its support. I am also grateful to the Minister for Schools, the honourable Member from Camden, for our conversation last week. The original draft of my speech said that I was very hopeful that, when the Minister came to close she would accept the amendment, but I have to say I was very disappointed by the reply that I received from the Minister for Schools today, in which—and I paraphrase —she said that she accepted the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, and I had raised when we met her but she stressed it was not the Government’s intention to do any of those bad things; it was to address things such as teachers who take a year’s sabbatical and then come back and all of this would be addressed through regulations. I feel like a cracked record in saying that we cannot legislate just for this Government and this Minister’s intentions. We can absolutely imagine that this is the kind of area that could become very politicised in future. Our basic argument is that our amendment would mean that complaints could not be brought in relation to a teacher’s behaviour before they began teaching and after they finished. The idea that you can bring a standard of professional conduct to someone when they are not acting in the profession is stretching things. Let us just imagine if Ministers were held to a Ministerial Code before and after their tenure; they obviously, I think we would agree, arguably wield greater power and influence, although I admit that at times it does…
Parents currently have no effective route to escalate a formal complaint about a school when they are not satisfied with the school's own response. Amendments 223–226 would create that escalation mechanism and introduce proper enforcement of schools' legal duties — including on political impartiality. At present significant parts of education law are simply not enforced.My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 223 to 226, and your Lordships’ House will remember that we debated the issue in these amendments in June of last year. The amendments have two aims: to provide parents with an effective means of escalating a formal complaint about a school when they are not satisfied with the school’s response, and to introduce a mechanism for better enforcing the legal duties of schools in the provision of education, for example over political impartiality. Proposing these amendments allows for a debate that draws attention to breaches of education law, the failure of the DfE to enforce it or to support concerned parents and the disempowering of parents in the education of their children. At present, there is little or no enforcement of significant parts of education law: first, because the school inspector at Ofsted does not consider compliance with education law per se. When challenged about rating schools hitherto as outstanding when they were clearly in breach of their legal duties, Ofsted has stated that there are many different obligations and that it is not a compliance-driven inspectorate. Inspectors are teachers by profession, so they may not always be equipped to make judgments over legal compliance. Secondly, parents could, in theory, launch a judicial review against their child’s school, but the significant costs of such legal action and the damage it could do to the parents’ relationships with their child’s school are significant factors. Parents can use the school’s internal complaints process, and, at a state-funded school, if they remain dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to the DfE. However, there are examples of extremely poor handling of complaints by the department. The department occasionally appears to go to considerable lengths to evade making any decision and parents can literally be waiting years after they first submitted their complaint to the school before they receive a response, by which time their…
- Amendment 191 — in the name of Lord Knight, who cannot be here — would extend TRA oversight to safeguarding failures at international schools run by English proprietors. The Safeguarding Alliance has provided deeply concerning recent examples of cases where the system has failed: sexually explicit material discovered on a teacher's device at an international school, with no mechanism to prevent the individual from returning to teach in England.
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 191 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Knight, to which I have added my name. In doing so, I declare my interest as honorary president of COBIS. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Knight, is unable to be here today, but I am grateful to him for sharing recent correspondence he has had with the Minister on this matter. It is critical that we act to improve the safeguarding arrangements between schools here in England and international schools overseas. The Safeguarding Alliance has supplied a couple of very concerning examples of recent cases where the system has clearly failed. In one international school, sexually explicit material was discovered on a school-owned computer during recent IT maintenance. A subsequent investigation identified multiple videos showing a member of staff livestreaming and recording explicit content which was stored within their user account. The content was assessed as being of such an extreme nature that the local UK embassy declined to view or handle the material. A referral was made to the Teaching Regulation Agency, but the TRA confirmed that the matter fell outside its jurisdiction. The member of staff is now working in another country and able to return to teach here undetected. In a second example, a nursery teacher was discovered by a parent in the act of sexually abusing a child within the school setting. The parent immediately reported the incident to the school’s senior leadership team. The school made an immediate referral to the relevant local authorities and attempted to report the incident to the TRA, but as the school was based overseas, the TRA was unable to accept or process the referral. The school had no clear alternative reporting or regulatory pathway for international safeguarding concerns involving a UK-regulated teacher. The alleged perpetrator subsequently left the setting, and their current whereabouts remain unknown. For this reason, Clause 46 is very welcome, in that it e…
- Schools are drowning in complaints — AI makes it trivial to produce lengthy ones at scale. Talk to any head teacher. Amendment 243D would streamline the current patchwork into a single, coherent complaints model, with triage so that complaints are considered only by the most relevant body.
My Lords, I have Amendment 243D, which is unchanged from the amendment that I tabled in Committee. It is late and I shall be brief. We are in a world where we all have a much greater propensity to complain in great numbers and are doing so very frequently. AI is making it easy to complain at great length, with minimal effort, and service providers of all kinds are quite simply drowning in workload. Talk to any head teacher and you will hear this. I propose streamlining the current messy patchwork of statutory provisions to create a single streamlined model in which complaints will be triaged and considered only by the most relevant body, with information available to others when necessary. I believe that this would improve schools’ capacity to respond to serious concerns. The Minister’s response was that the issue was being considered by the Improving Education Together group of unions and other stakeholders, with which the Government are committed to co-developing policy design and implementation. Indeed, this consideration seems to have happened, because guidance was recently published, both for parents by DfE and for schools by Parentkind. The content is entirely sensible, but it does not address the major structural problem: that a minority of parents can and do spray complaints at every conceivably relevant entity, including Ofsted, DfE, the Teaching Regulation Agency, as well as school governors and MATs or local authorities. A proportion of parents do not desist, even when they get fair and reasonable responses, and these volumes are drowning out the serious complaints that absolutely need attention. And despite this guidance, there are still those different legal frameworks and best practice guidelines for maintained schools and academies, which continues to create confusion. I think schools will have hoped for greater acknowledgement of the scale of the issue and the impact it is having both on staff well-being and more generally on school capacity to respo…
- Many teachers are not union members — that is a personal choice. Not being in a union must not put a teacher at a disadvantage when facing a formal allegation. Doctors and dentists can be accompanied by professional defence organisation representatives at disciplinary hearings; teachers should have the same right under Amendment 191A.
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to Amendment 191A, to which I would have added my name had I been slightly more organised. I have been a member of teaching unions in the past but I am not any longer. Many teachers are not members of a union. These are personal decisions, whether cost or philosophical. Trade unions play an important role in the workplace, but not being a member should not put you at a disadvantage when facing a formal allegation. It is all very well bringing a colleague along but, apart from the moral support, they might not be much help. Doctors and dentists are permitted to be accompanied at disciplinary hearings by representatives from professional defence organisations under the NHS’s maintaining high professional standards framework. This has not undermined trade unions or weakened safeguarding: it has simply ensured that highly scrutinised professionals are not left unsupported at critical moments and has helped to ensure that due process has been followed. Teachers and school staff operate under comparable levels of public scrutiny and regulatory oversight. Amendment 191A is a modest, sensible step that reflects the reality and promotes fairness and consistency in how disciplinary processes are conducted. It does not even go so far as arrangements in medicine but is a step in the right direction and I strongly support it. Amendment 243D, to which I did actually add my name, is very simple. I know from first-hand experience how complicated school complaints can be, with different complaints being sent to different organisations, often duplicated. They could be going to DfE, Ofsted, TRA, the school and the LEA. This is a very simple, overdue and badly needed amendment.
I support Amendment 190 precisely to prevent TRA jurisdiction being extended to conduct before someone entered teaching, or after they stopped. Clause 46 as drafted would allow the TRA to investigate anyone who has at any time been engaged in teaching work for conduct at any time in their life — that is far too broad.My Lords, it was a pleasure to listen to the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, which was about a modest change to the remit of the TRA. However, I support Amendment 190, to which I have added my name, precisely not to extend the TRA’s remit in two particular ways—that the TRA should be allowed to consider, as the noble Baroness opposite said, complaints about behaviour before someone becomes a qualified and practising teacher, and that it should be allowed to consider complaints after someone has stopped teaching. I do not know whether there is any confusion in the minds of anyone in the Government. Clearly, if someone interrupts their teaching and then wants to come back to it, that is a different matter. If we are talking about people who have permanently left teaching, though, it seems unreasonable for the TRA to proceed. With regard to people against whom the TRA might seek to proceed before they have started teaching, the National Education Union says: “Once the door is opened to pre-career conduct, it becomes very difficult to draw principled boundaries. How far back should investigations reach? Should conduct as a teenager or student be included? What weight should be given to immaturity, context, or personal development?” What about what both the noble Baroness opposite and I described in the meeting with Minister Gould, which I was very pleased to attend, as “youthful high jinks”, which in no way reaches any kind of criminality but someone might seek to complain about? There is a real problem here. Even Minister Gould said that she could see we were saying that these proposals seemed to be too much of a broad brush, and that is indeed my concern. Teachers are rightly held to very high standards and, although we heard some egregious examples of bad behaviour from teachers, in general the vast majority not only are held to high standards but meet and exceed them. Therefore, to create the pressure of the possibility that someone could complain about…
- Clause 46 addresses a real gap: someone who resigns to escape a referral cannot currently be investigated. The TRA's jurisdiction will extend to those who have at any time been employed in teaching work — and I understand the concern, but the alternative is allowing people to evade accountability simply by leaving the profession. On Amendment 191A, we are open to continuing the conversation on the right of accompaniment in the context of the schools White Paper. On Amendment 243D, simplification of the complaints system is something we want to see and we hope to bring something forward.
My Lords, this group of amendments concerns three distinct areas, which I will take in turn. Amendments 190 and 191 concern the jurisdiction of the Teaching Regulation Agency. Amendment 190 would remove the ability of the TRA to investigate alleged misconduct that occurred before an individual began their teaching career. I understand the concern here may also be that Clause 46 permits the TRA to investigate those who at any time have been employed or engaged in teaching work and hold those responsible for their conduct at any time in their life. Given that this includes me, I can wholly understand noble Lords’ concerns. At present, the teacher misconduct regime limits the TRA’s jurisdiction only to those who are currently employed or engaged in teaching work, or who were so employed or engaged when the referral was made. There are problems with this—it cannot be right. Clause 46 addresses this by extending the TRA’s jurisdiction to those who have at any time been employed or engaged in teaching work. Noble Lords can imagine that there could be times when somebody has very recently resigned, possibly with the idea of avoiding a referral to come, and is not able to be investigated. So there are circumstances where it would be appropriate to change the ability of the TRA to investigate. Given what noble Lords have said today, despite the assurances that my honourable friend Georgia Gould was able to provide to noble Lords during the meeting they held with her, I can understand noble Lords’ concerns. Therefore, the department is not in the position of wanting to implement Clause 46 without having undertaken considerable further consultation, having considered the points that noble Lords have raised. I hope I can give that assurance this evening, and I will find a way to come back to noble Lords with how we intend to do that and some of the safeguards around the sorts of issues that noble Lords have identified this evening. While Amendment 190 seeks to narrow the TRA’s…
- What I heard the Minister say on Amendment 190 was a commitment not to implement Clause 46 without proper consultation. But the intent is not what the clause actually says — please look at the wording again.
I thank the Minister for her response. On Amendment 190, what I heard her say was that she would undertake not to implement Clause 46 without proper consultation. I urge her to look again with her colleagues at the wording of the clause, because while the Government’s intent is absolutely spot on, it is not what is said in the clause. If there is a way to do more, that would be even better. I thank the Minister for her responses and for her openness to continue the conversation on Amendment 191. She almost repeated my noble friend’s words about simplification in the schools White Paper, so we look forward to seeing Amendment 243D back in new, official, government form. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 190.
- Government Amendment 192 narrows Clause 50 so that the Secretary of State can only issue directions to academies where a proprietor has actually breached its funding agreement — removing the anticipatory power and confining its use to actual breaches. Government Amendment 193 introduces Ofsted inspection of multi-academy trusts for the first time, closing a significant accountability gap: trust-level decisions affect thousands of children yet there has been no independent inspection of trusts themselves.
My Lords, government amendments 192 and 193 would strengthen accountability in the academy sector and introduce trust-level inspection to ensure high standards across all trusts. Together, they respond to discussion and points raised in Committee and deliver a proportionate, effective framework for intervention and improvement. Amendment 192 will narrow the scope of Clause 50, so that the Secretary of State may issue directions only where an academy proprietor has breached a duty imposed by its funding agreements. As stated in Committee, Clause 50 is an important lever for improving accountability in the academy sector. However, we have listened carefully to the concerns raised in this House and the other place about the breadth of the original clause, and we have acted to respond to those concerns and provide clarity. In particular, the amendment removes the anticipatory element of the power and confines its use to cases of actual breach, rather than where a breach is considered likely. We want the use of directions to be clear, direct and proportionate. This government amendment will provide reassurance without weakening accountability, while maintaining the ability to act swiftly where standards are at risk. Academy trustees are also charity trustees, and we will engage with the Charity Commission, where appropriate, under our Memorandum of Understanding, prior to issuing a direction. Government Amendment 193 will introduce Ofsted inspections of academy trusts and close a significant accountability gap. We have heard in debates the central role academy trusts play in our education system. Yet accountability has not kept pace with growth, despite decisions at trust level potentially having wide-reaching impacts on the quality of education and support that children receive in academies. Inspection will provide independent, expert assessment of a trust’s strengths and areas for improvement, supporting a self-improving system and identifying where intervention is nee…
Amendments 193A and 193B are about good communication: when Ofsted inspects a multi-academy trust that contains a faith school, the relevant religious authority — for the Church of England, the Diocesan Board of Education — should receive the inspection report. Diocesan Boards have statutory duties in relation to their schools that they cannot discharge without timely sight of trust inspection reports.My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 193A, 193B and 193C and declare my interest as chair of the National Society for Education. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, for her support of Amendments 193A and 193B. I will address these two first and together. These two amendments are about good communication. They would require the chief inspector to include the relevant religious body along with the academy proprietor and the Secretary of State when a report is circulated at the conclusion of an inspection of a multi-academy trust that contains a school with a religious foundation. For example, in the case of the Church of England, the relevant body would be the Diocesan Board of Education. Under the DBE Measure 2021, DBEs have a range of duties and powers, including advice-giving, data analysis and information gathering in relation to their schools and academies. Timely receipt of a multi-academy trust’s inspection report will enable the fulfilment of these duties and powers. I seek the Minister’s assurance that these straightforward amendments, enabling good communication and the delivery of statutory duty, will find their way into the Bill. Amendment 193C in my name would ensure that where multi-academy trusts contain schools with a religious designation, these are inspected on and held to account for their ethos, religious education and collective worship. At present, over 42% of Church of England’s schools are academies, amounting to over 20% of all academies in England. When we include Roman Catholic academies and those with other religious foundations, the total percentage rises still further to approximately one-third of the entire academy estate. All these academies will fall under the proposed new requirement for the inspection of multi-academy trusts. However, at present there is no provision for the specialist denominational inspection of those multi-academy trusts that have direct responsibility for the leadership and governance of academies with a re…
- As a former chief inspector who advocated for MAT inspection for years, I welcome Amendment 193. But school inspection and trust inspection are fundamentally different activities: schools are directly accountable to parents, while trusts are accountable to the Secretary of State. The amendment must be explicit about that distinction and must not lead Ofsted to extend its existing accountability-focused school inspection model to trusts, where a developmental approach would be more appropriate.
My Lords, a substantial new chapter is being added to the Bill on Report by the Government’s Amendment 193, which provides for the inspection of multi-academy trusts. This has considerable significance for the regulation of all academies, and I must therefore make some wider points before I turn to Amendments 193D and 193E in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran, to which I have put my name. I must also declare my interest as a former Ofsted chief inspector who has advocated strongly for MAT inspection for many years. Everyone is familiar with school inspection. For more than 30 years, this was unequivocally framed by government as a public accountability mechanism to defend the interests of children and parents. The very last strands of support activity were removed from Ofsted more than a decade ago so as to avoid any blurring. Published inspection judgments and reports with real consequences are a powerful regulatory force, precisely because they have real traction. This model has long been the subject of relentless hostility and efforts to undermine it by some within the sector. But the law relating to school inspections has not kept pace with the evolution of sector structures over the past 20 years. The academy trust model, which now goes back 20 years, places legal responsibility for a school unequivocally with the trust board, not with a school-level governing body or an individual head teacher. Successive Governments chose to keep inspection to school level while evolving a separate regulatory approach for trusts. That separate approach broadly consists of private review within DfE of published and other data and periodic private discussion between each MAT and the DfE regulatory team, with escalation to Ministers where necessary. In the main, trust-level concerns are dealt with privately, except where the most serious failings justify terminating a funding agreement or acting against an individual. This mechanism is highly susceptible to producer captur…
The new MAT inspection regime is welcome, but Amendments 193A and 193B correct a small but important omission: faith-based schools within multi-academy trusts have a religious authority that must be informed of inspection outcomes. The current drafting of Amendment 193 does not replicate the existing notification requirement that applies to single-school inspections.My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 193A and 193B in the names of the right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and myself. These amendments are very simple. They seek to address a small technical omission regarding the inspection of multi-academy trusts when they are the proprietor of one or more schools with a religious character. When Ofsted inspects schools with a religious character, one of the organisations it is required to notify of the outcome of state inspection is the religious authority responsible for running the school. My noble friend the Minister’s amendment to introduce inspections of multi-academy trusts is welcome, but I feel that the amendment does not replicate the duty of notifying religious authorities for these inspections. Multi-academy trusts play an important role in creating and upholding the ethos and community in which schools with a religious character operate, so it is essential that the result of any inspection of the trusts that contains such schools must be shared with the relevant religious authority. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth has already said, it is an issue of communication. These amendments would ensure that the inspection of multi-academy trusts which contain schools with a religious character is consistent with the individual inspection of those schools. I have worked closely with the Catholic Education Service and with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth in bringing these amendments to your Lordships’ House today, and I am sure that the representatives of other religious groups which run schools would also support them. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to accept these amendments today or give her assurances that under the Government’s amendment the relevant religious authorities will be notified about the results of multi-academy trust inspections when those trusts are the proprietors of schools under their denominational jurisdiction. I also…
- This is a big change in the education service and it deserves a longer debate than it will get at this hour. My key question: is this the start of a proper accountability regime for multi-academy trusts, or will it be so light-touch as to be meaningless? The amendment is pages long but says very little about what inspection will actually involve.
My Lords, this is a big change in the education service. I welcome the Government bringing this amendment, because it was not there in Committee and I think it is a response to speeches made on both sides of the House, so I want to put on record my thanks to the Minister and her team for working in between Committee and Report to give us something. It deserves a longer debate than it will get at this time of the night, so it is a shame that it has arrived so late. I want to seek one reassurance. It must get the prize for the longest amendment because it is pages long. But it also gets the prize for the longest amendment that does not say very much. That is basically the first question I want to ask. Will the Minister give assurance that we will have opportunity to discuss the detail of this? It is a big change, and some of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, need to be addressed. Secondly, and this is the most important thing for me, could the Minister give an assurance that she will endeavour to make the inspection such that schools do not feel they have been inspected twice, and that it is an inspection of the MAT ownership or governance and not the schools themselves?
- Research shows no correlation between MAT CEO pay and school performance. Amendment 196A and Amendment 197 — which includes provision to impose limits on CEO pay under parliamentary scrutiny — address a real problem: some MAT CEOs are paid far more than the leaders of much larger organisations.
My Lords, I will speak chiefly to Amendment 196A in my name and to Amendment 197 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, to which I also attached my name. Given the hour, I am going to restrain myself on a lot of things. It is a great pity that we are doing this important business at this hour. The Minister, in introducing this group, talked about the need to improve the accountability of multi-academy trusts, which has not kept pace with the growth of MATs. We have heard agreement on that from right across the House. With that in mind, I am going to start with Amendment 197, which we have not yet heard the formal introduction of. I will not go through it in detail, but it looks at the remuneration of chief executives of multi-academy trusts. It includes the provision, under parliamentary scrutiny, to impose limits on that pay. It might be a difficult job, but I think I am about to shock the House at 11.23 pm. A few days ago, the website Education Uncovered produced some figures on the pay of CEOs of multi-academy trusts—not the biggest ones but the group of the next biggest ones, ranked from 11 to 25 on the number of pupils. A £220,000 salary is becoming standard for these multi-academy trust CEOs—and you can add a pension of about £50,000. This is significantly more than the Prime Minister is paid. We have a fat-cat pay problem right across our society, but here we are talking about public funds allocated for children’s education going to fat-cat pay. I said that the Education Uncovered figure was for 2025. For the largest trusts, I had to go back to a Schools Week investigation from last March looking at some of the highest pay, and a year ago the CEO’s pay at one of the multi-academy trusts had crossed the £500,000 a year threshold, while three more were on more than £300,000 a year. Unsurprisingly, the National Governance Association told Schools Week that benchmarking seemed to be leading to inflationary pressure—something some noble Lords here who know qu…
- Research shows no correlation between MAT CEO pay and school outcomes. Some CEOs responsible for eight to ten schools are paid more than those running far larger trusts. That is not fair or right — we need a mechanism to scrutinise that.
My Lords, regarding the amendments by my noble friend Lord Storey, research has shown no correlation between the pay of the CEOs of multi-academy trusts and the schools they have responsibility for. I hope the Minister can say whether there will be a mechanism to look at the pay of some of these highly paid officials and what responsibilities they have. There could be cases where people have responsibility for eight to 10 schools but get paid more than people with responsibility for higher numbers. That does not seem fair or right. I know it is late, but I thought it important that I raise this point on behalf of my noble friend.
Unregulated CEO pay in the MAT sector is an ever-growing problem. The think tank EDSK called last year for mandatory pay scales capped at £263,000 with fines for non-compliance. The National Governance Association warns that the growing gap between CEO pay and teacher pay risks undermining the collaborative leadership essential to school improvement.It is really late, but I tabled a similar amendment to this in Committee. Unregulated CEO pay is becoming an ever greater problem in the sector. Last year the policy think tank EDSK called for mandatory CEO pay scales capped at £263,000, with fines for those who did not follow that. The National Governance Association has said that the growing gap between CEO pay and that of other senior leaders—and, I would also say, teachers—risks undermining the collaborative leadership essential to school improvement. I hope the Government will look at this serious problem, which demands action.
CEO pay is not the main problem in the education system. If we want outstanding people to lead multi-academy trusts — doing one of the most important jobs in this country — we should pay them appropriately. What matters is whether Amendment 193 delivers a genuine accountability regime for trusts: that question deserves a fuller answer than we will get at this hour.My Lords, I want to talk briefly about this group of amendments. While I recognise the passion with which the previous three speakers have spoken on CEO remuneration, I do not think that is the main problem in the education system. If we want really good people to head up multi-academy trusts and to do one of the most important jobs in this country, which is to educate the next generation, we should pay them. If that means that the Prime Minister is underpaid, we should be having a separate debate to recognise his leadership and that of anyone else who holds that position. I want to go back to Amendment 193 and echo the thanks from the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley. I am not sure that it wins the prize for the longest set of amendments, but it is perhaps the speediest set of government amendments. We had this debate in Committee, and voices from all sides of the House recognised that putting in place an inspection regime for the proprietors of multi-academy trusts was overdue. It makes me suspect that the department had these amendments somewhere ready to go when an opportunity presented itself, because we all spend a lot of our time asking the Government to make amendments and are told, “Not now, not this Bill, not quite yet”. Indeed, I had a conversation with the Minister like that just yesterday morning—though it feels like longer ago. We will return to that next week, but I am impressed with how fast these amendments have been proposed. That, of course, means that, as we have heard, because of the hour we are debating this, they will not get all the scrutiny we would like. That is why I think that Amendment 193D from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about further consultation or work before these provisions come into effect, would be extremely worth while. I also want to echo one of the other questions. The question that has been put to me by those from multi-academy trusts is: what is the relationship between this inspection regime and the inspection o…
- It is curious that Amendment 193 has appeared only at Report stage, having not been in the Bill at all in the Commons. Much is left to secondary legislation; the scope of Secretary of State powers in the drafting is extremely broad, suggesting it was drafted in haste. The amendments from the Bishop of Portsmouth and my Amendments 193D and 193E highlight the gaps. We need an assurance that the distinct purpose of MAT inspection — different from school inspection — will be clearly set out in guidance.
My Lords, like others I really regret that we are debating these amendments so late, because they are very important. I will try to get to my key points. I thank the Minister for Amendment 192 in relation to Clause 50; this addresses some of the concerns that we raised about its scope in Committee and again in the other place. The main substance of this group, as we have heard, is the lengthy, prize-winning Amendment 193, which would allow the Government to introduce mass inspection. We debated this in Committee. It is curious that the Bill has gone through all stages in the other place and only now are we seeing this on Report. Some of the gaps that it reveals are highlighted in the amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and in my Amendments 193D and 193E. We can see that in the breadth of drafting of this amendment, with so much left to secondary legislation giving Secretary of State extremely broad powers—which suggested to me that it was an amendment that was drafted in haste rather than one that was on the shelf. Officials kindly invited me in to talk about the amendment before Christmas, and they argued the case for giving the Secretary of State maximum flexibility. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, said on an earlier group, we have talked about this ad nauseam, and the Government have acted to correct some of it, but this new clause goes in the wrong direction in relation to those powers. If we think back to the introduction of the new school inspection regime, we see that there was a huge consultation and piloting of the approach, and now we are seeing it rolled out. All my Amendment 193D asks is that we mirror that and do exactly the same. I have suggested a focus in terms of the pilot, which would be to look at MATs that have groups of schools in the following categories. There would be one category where they are significantly underperforming and where there might be a case for intervention; and another would be where they wo…
- On the faith notification amendments: Ofsted already has a duty to inform religious authorities before a routine trust inspection takes place, and it will always deem a religious authority appropriate to receive the resulting report. The provisions in Amendment 193 already provide for sharing reports with the Secretary of State, who has power to share further. On CEO pay: we believe transparency and the new inspection regime are the right levers — we do not propose statutory pay caps. On the specific question of the purpose of MAT inspection versus school inspection, I am happy to commit to write to the noble Baroness.
My Lords, despite the lateness of the hour, we have had a good discussion on the issues raised in group 10. I turn to the amendments that have been discussed during this debate. I will start with Amendments 193A and 193B, tabled in the names of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and Amendment 193C, tabled by the right reverend Prelate. These relate to the inspection of trusts, including academies that have been designated “as having a religious character”. Amendments 193A and 193B propose additional requirements for Ofsted to share trust inspection reports—what the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend described as “important communication issues”. I recognise the importance of both informing the relevant religious authorities about trust-level inspections and ensuring robust oversight of trust leaders in relation to developing and maintaining the religious character of faith-based settings. On Amendment 193A, I hope that I can provide some reassurance to the right reverend Prelate that there is already a duty on Ofsted to inform religious authorities in advance of a routine trust inspection. Our provisions already include a duty for Ofsted to share reports of routine inspections with the trust, and the Secretary of State has a power to share them with persons it deems appropriate. Ofsted has confirmed that it will always deem a religious authority that it has already informed about an inspection taking place as an appropriate person to receive a report. I can therefore assure noble Lords that religious authorities will always be sent the report by Ofsted. On Amendment 193B, as religious authorities will always receive a full trust inspection report setting out that a trust is not performing to an acceptable standard, they do not need to be separately notified about a poor inspection outcome. I therefore hope that noble Lords recognise that Amendments 193A and 193B are not necessary. Turning to A…
- The Minister said nearly everything we were hoping to hear. Please confirm in writing that the different purposes of MAT inspection and school inspection will be set out clearly in the Government's guidance.
I think the Minister said nearly everything that we were hoping to hear. Perhaps she can also confirm in writing that the different purposes of MAT inspection and school inspection will be set out clearly in the Government’s guidance. I welcome her reassurance.
- Unfortunately I was not convinced by the Minister's response and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Unfortunately, I was not convinced by the Minister’s response and I wish to test the opinion of the House.