Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:10 - Division on Amendment 199 - Ayes: 295 / Noes: 180 - Amendment 199 agreed.
Baroness Barran
“Reasonableness and safeguards in the exercise of local authority powers(1) In exercising powers under sections 54 to 56, a local authority must act reasonably and proportionately, having regard to—(a) the needs of the child,(b) the needs of other pupils at the school, and(c) the capacity of the school to meet the child’s needs safely and effectively.(2) An Academy may, within 10 school days of receiving a direction or proposed direction under sections 54 to 56, notify the local authority and the Secretary of State that it considers the direction to be unreasonable on one or more of the following grounds—(a) that the Academy cannot reasonably be expected, with the resources and specialist expertise available to it, to meet the child’s special educational needs or other significant additional needs;(b) that admitting the child would seriously prejudice the education or welfare of existing pupils or the safety of pupils or staff;(c) that suitable and reasonably accessible alternative provision is available which is better able to meet the child’s needs;(d) that the direction is otherwise irrational or disproportionate.(3) Where notice is given under subsection (2), the direction shall not take effect until—(a) the Secretary of State has confirmed, varied or set aside the direction, or(b) such other independent review body as may be prescribed by regulations has determined the matter.(4) Before confirming or varying a direction under subsection (3), the Secretary of State (or other prescribed body) must—(a) give the Academy proprietor and the local authority an opportunity to make written representations, and(b) have regard to any relevant code of practice or statutory guidance.(5) In this section “Academy” has the same meaning as in this Act.(6) In exercising functions under this section, the Secretary of State (or other prescribed body) must have particular regard to the importance of securing fair access for looked-after children, previously looked-after children, children who have been excluded from a previous school and children with an education, health and care plan.(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause provides safeguards for Academies where a local authority uses its powers under clauses 54 to 56 to direct an Academy to admit a particular child.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, this group contains some important amendments, including my Amendments 198 and 199.
Amendment 198 deals with the duty to co-operate that all schools are required to respect, which I raised in Committee. I questioned whether there really was a problem that needed solving—namely, that academies were routinely refusing to accept either children who had been permanently excluded from another school or looked-after children. The Minister responded in November; I am grateful to her officials for preparing the data for me. It showed that, across the whole of England, there were tiny numbers of cases where local authorities requested that the Secretary of State should direct the admission of a child. In only 24 cases last year, 28 the year before and 26 the year before that did the Secretary of State use those powers. That was for about half of the requests made. With 8.8 million children in this country, over half of them educated in academies, to be arguing about 25 children a year seems extraordinary.
The Government made the case that this would reduce delays, with the department taking 38 days to respond, but surely a much simpler approach would be for it to speed up its processes. Currently, the time taken to respond in similar cases with maintained schools is between 28 and 35 days, if one takes into account the time that the maintained school has to file an objection and the time for the schools adjudicator to respond. We are dancing on the heads of two microscopic pins, around time and the number of children, when all it would take is for the department to decide tomorrow to cut the time it takes to make these decisions.
More broadly, my Amendment 198 aims to pick up on points made in Committee by my noble friends Lord Agnew and Lady Spielman and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley. We all accept the principles that underpin the duty to co-operate and the need for all schools to do so. However, as my noble friend Lady Spielman pointed out in Committee, there are cases where a school may not have the skills or capacity to address the needs of a certain child or children, particularly at a time when the system for children with SEND is under strain and mainstream schools are expected to accept pupils whose needs are severe and who would previously have attended a special school.
In Committee, the Minister pointed out that local authorities must ensure that decisions are made in the child’s best interests. My amendment would put in a balanced consideration of the child’s needs, the needs of other pupils and the capacity of the school to meet those needs. I wish—it is a faint wish at this late stage—that the Government would withdraw this unnecessary clause, but if they will not do so then perhaps they will accept my amendment. If the Minister will not accept it, can she explicitly set out in summing up how these very reasonable concerns which balance the rights of different groups of children will be addressed?
My Amendment 199 aims to prevent the schools adjudicator from requiring high-performing schools to reduce their PAN, or published admission numbers. There is a practical problem in some areas of falling pupil numbers—a projected drop of about 300,000 primary pupils by 2030, and 97,000 fewer secondary pupils—and this in turn is putting financial pressure on some schools. But the way to sort this out is not by requiring the most popular, highest-performing schools in an area to cut their PAN. It pays no regard to the interests of children nor to the rights of parents to choose a high-performing school for their child.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 201 in my name, which deals with the issue of faith-based selection in school admissions. This speaks to the missing data that the Schools Minister raised in Committee in the other place. The Department for Education currently does not collect data on how admissions policies are applied in schools and therefore does not know how many parents are missing out on a place at their preferred school because of their religion or because they do not have a religion. Collecting data would shed light on what the impact of faith-selective admissions is for parents and pupils, and on whether such selection is contributing to or undermining parental choice. This is not an argument against faith schools; many provide an excellent education and are deeply rooted in their communities. Rather, the purpose of Amendment 201 is to promote fairness and genuine parental choice by limiting the extent to which oversubscription criteria can be used to select pupils on the basis of religion.
In Committee, the Government pointed to the existing admissions framework, by which admissions must be published and applied consistently. But the question is not simply whether rules exist on paper but what those rules do in practice when a school is oversubscribed. If admissions turn on faith tests that some families cannot meet, because they are either of a different faith or of no faith, then, in reality, the local school is not equally accessible to the local community.
There is also the wider issue of inclusion and cohesion. Selection by faith risks narrowing pupil diversity and, over time, separating children along religious and, sometimes, ethnic lines during their formative years. Evidence suggests that faith-based selection can correlate with lower inclusion. The Sutton Trust has found that faith schools are more socially selective, admitting fewer pupils eligible for free school meals than would be expected given their local status. Research highlighted by the London School of Economics has reported the underadmission of children with special educational needs and disabilities to faith primary schools. The Office of the Schools Adjudicator has reported concerns from local authorities that faith-based criteria can in some cases disadvantage looked-after and previously looked-after children.
The aim here is straightforward: to ensure that publicly funded schools serve their whole community and that parental choice is not narrowed by criteria unrelated to a child’s needs or a family’s proximity to the school. Amendment 201 is a measured step that would support fairness in admissions and help ensure that our children are brought together rather than separated. Amendment 201 promotes fairness and parental choice in schools’ admissions policy, and I commend it to the House.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 199, to which I have added my name. In this, I am channelling my inner Baroness Wolf of Dulwich—the noble Baroness sends her apologies that she cannot be in her place. This amendment attempts to rectify another example in the Bill in which a well-intentioned idea is turning out to be a mistake. It is a bit of an example of top-down government seemingly punishing a school for being successful. Whereas education is all about nurturing and helping improvement in those who are less successful, this is a cold logic to reduce empty places and surplus capacity.
In an ideal world, the number of children wanting to go to various local schools would fit neatly into the number of places in local schools, but it does not. That is, in part, because parents are now much more aware of the league tables, Ofsted inspections, academy specialisations and all sorts of online opinions. It also reduces the most important incentive for a school to succeed and improve—one that has been at the heart of Labour’s and successive Governments’ academies programme, which has itself been at the heart of 20 years of school improvement, and which threatens to be reversed by this.
If good and oversubscribed schools can expand, and unpopular schools are not filled up with unwilling attendees, all schools would have a strong incentive to be good. When school choice and academisation were introduced, there were predictions that we would end up with lots of sink schools and a significant number of children having an even worse education than before recruitment was freed up. This did not happen. There has been a steady decrease in the number of badly performing schools. Competition works, not by creating a monopoly but by incentivising and driving improvement.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, my Amendment 230 in this group is on off-rolling. Whatever the good points of academisation, there has been a strong suspicion—a fact, in some cases—that certain schools are off-rolling pupils who are seen to be a problem. The best of the academies are probably dealing with this. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, being impassioned as a Minister in saying that we must stop this. There is a strong suspicion that it goes on, possibly underneath, at a school level, when a teacher or headmaster is worried about personal development. Whether we like it or not, that strong suspicion exists, and there has been a rise in the number of exclusions going on.
When the Minister answers, I hope that she will tell us how this is being dealt with. If it is not being dealt with, it is a problem that we will have to get to grips with. I hope that there will be a coherent look at this, so we know exactly what the case is. There is a strong suspicion that special educational needs is a factor pushing this. I have known people going through this, where it has been assumed that every pupil in a pupil referral unit has at least one special educational need. The Minister has been engaged in these types of areas, and I hope that, when she comes to answer for the Government, she can tell us what the Government are going to do. If there is even a suspicion, we should find out the truth and look at it coherently.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, I will talk to Amendments 198 and 199, to which I have added my name. Inclusion is very important but, at the moment, some children—too many, frankly—who should not be in maintained education are being admitted to maintained schools because of their parents’ wishes. Those parents are making decisions that are not in the best interests of their children. These are often inappropriate settings and it affects the education and resources available to other children in those settings. We need more special schools that are better located, so that children are not spending hours in taxis, and we need better alternative provision. I very much hope that the Government are seized of this issue and that they will allow more special and AP free schools.
On Amendment 199, I find it hard to think of circumstances where it would be a good idea to limit the size of a school that provides high-quality education. I can, however, think of many examples of where it would be a very bad idea. As my noble friend Lady Barran said, we are heading towards overcapacity in schools, and the best way for that situation to resolve itself is by letting the market and parents decide.
Local authorities are understandably reluctant to close schools and there are often many local, political or ward issues in play. We certainly do not want local authorities to reduce the PAN of schools on the basis of political issues overriding the interests of children or parents. I am aware of boroughs that have tried to resist the creation of new free schools based on a lack of demand in their location when, on further investigation, it became clear that many local pupils were actually going to schools in neighbouring boroughs or local authorities, because their local schools were performing so poorly. It is a complicated issue.
My academy trust specialises in taking on failing schools. We have just taken on another secondary school, thanks to terrific co-operation from the Department for Education and a certain amount of money, for which I am very grateful. This is another failing secondary school in Hertfordshire, with only 400 pupils on the roll but with a much higher PAN and substantial local demand. The school had previously had three required improvements in 15 years. As we have taken on a further four failing schools in Hertfordshire and turned them around, and have a very good relationship with the Hertfordshire local authority, I do not think this would be an issue in this location. But if we were in the future asked to take on a similarly failing school in an authority we did not know, the ability of the local authority to reduce the PAN might well deter us, and no doubt others. Reducing the PAN of a successful school to protect a school whose roll is falling is no answer. Students do best in schools which are full or nearly full, and have the resources to provide an adequate education.
Finally, in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, while I do not think off-rolling is as frequent as perhaps some people think, it would be better to know the answer and get the facts.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I will make a few comments on this group of amendments. On Amendment 230, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I have great sympathy with what he says, and I hope that it may be an issue that the Minister will address when the SEND reform plans are presented in due course.
I understand the intention behind Amendment 198 and have a lot of sympathy with it. I can think of lots of schools that have been put in quite difficult positions and lots of children who have not had a good deal having being allocated to a particular school. The problem here—something that was not addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran—is that, on the whole, schools are not queuing up to take the most challenging children. They might want to do their best by them and believe that that is their job, but, with the accountability mechanisms the way they are, it tilts the balance away from schools taking children who offer particular challenges.
If you put in legislation a whole set of reasons to say no to a given child, that does not make the child or the family feel very good, and you would have to work hard to make sure that it was for a valid reason and not an invalid reason. My approach would sooner be that you put support in and make the SEND system work. I am an optimist. I do not think we have to give protection to some schools from taking challenging children. I think we have got it in us to adjust the policy framework, go in there and help them succeed. That would be serving every child and not discriminating against them.
My main comments relate to Amendment 199. We semi-rehearsed this in Committee, so I will not go over that again. I would never support a situation where a school that was unlikely to succeed had more children allocated to it at the expense of a school that was doing well. If that was the only decision, I would probably end up supporting the amendment, but it is much more complicated than that.
There is a bit of a conundrum at the heart of this, and it goes to what the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, said. I agree with parental choice but I do not agree with the market in schools, and there is a difference between the two. Parental choice is right and good and desirable, and we should write the law to facilitate it whenever we can. In a market, however, you do not intervene; you let things fail. They wither away on the vine, and that takes time, and then they fail and then close, and that leaves a gap. Look at the high streets in some of our small towns and cities—we cannot have that for schools. We cannot have a schools policy that has in it an acceptance that some schools will wither on the vine and fail. It is not good for the children who are there. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, when she was a Minister, and her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, would have gone into such schools to intervene and try to make them improve. That is why I have never used the term “market” in relation to schools: parental choice yes, but market, no. Somehow, that is at the core of my concerns about this amendment.
There are two issues. If it was about not wanting to go to the surplus places, I would agree with the noble Baroness. If there are more children, let us try to put them in the schools that are flourishing. But if it is a situation where the number of students on a roll in a given geographical area is falling, something has to happen. If you can merge them together, that is great, but you can get the difficult situation where you have to do something else. That is where I would manage parental choice and whatever market there is. I worry that if we say that their numbers cannot fall but their numbers can fall, all we do is make it more difficult for every school to thrive and succeed.
A school that is just turning that corner, as the noble Baroness on the Opposition Front Bench described, that has been taken over by a good academy, got itself a new head and perhaps has a new housing estate nearby is on its way. It would fall under this because it does not have a good Ofsted inspection or anything like that.
If we look at Camden, 96% to 100% of schools are good or outstanding. I do not know, but I suspect that Camden is going to have falling rolls at some point because it is a London borough. This would give protection to every school in Camden because none of them is failing. Most of them are maintained schools, not academies, but it does not matter as they are all doing a good job. This clause would not work there. The way that schools would read this is that there is now a law that if it has had a good inspection in the last three years, it is protected. If you tried to enact proposed new subsection (5D)(a) and (b), there would be an almighty row because schools would have been given protection by this clause.
I would sooner play to our optimism. Where schools really cannot succeed, let them go and manage a good education for the pupils, but in cases of falling rolls we have to do everything we can to plan appropriately across a geographical area to make sure that we give every school the best possible chance of doing well.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and largely to agree, although I would go somewhat further and say that I think we have reached the situation of a market in schools in which very crude judgments are being applied by Ofsted, and schools are being pushed to game the system. That is why I signed Amendment 230 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and why the Green group will oppose Amendment 199 should it come to a vote.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, was charitable when he said that there is a strong suspicion that off-rolling is going on. I am afraid I have no doubt that off-rolling is going on because up and down England, particularly in some of the most deprived communities, I have spoken to parents, often parents from very disadvantaged backgrounds themselves, who have said, “I’m trying to home-school my child now because the head teacher said they thought that was the best thing that could happen”. That was not home schooling by choice. That was usually pupils with special educational needs that the school just did not want to deal with. I have some sympathy with head teachers. Having been a school governor, I know how much pressure head teachers are under to keep up with the results. The problem is that we have created a competitive system where schools compete against each other instead of working together to create the best result for every pupil.
Amendment 230 is very modest. It simply calls for a review. I can tell my anecdotal stories, but I cannot say how big the problem is. I have seen it in many places, and I am sure that it is quite widespread. I do not believe the noble Lord intends to put this to a vote, but surely we can ask the Government to look at this anyway. As other noble Lords have said, it is something we should know about because this is one way in which we are failing some of our most disadvantaged pupils. Amendment 199, if it were to be passed, just furthers that sense of competition, which is the last thing we need in our schooling system.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 198 and will touch on Amendment 230 from the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Listening to noble Lords around the House, I find it surprising that they consistently believe that inspection, for which I was responsible for seven years, does not place a heavy emphasis on inclusion. Certainly throughout my time it did. The current framework has increased that focus almost to the point of giving up on looking at education, for which one learning walk and the results are about the extent of the coverage. Inclusion is and has long been taken extraordinarily seriously.
There are two issues that I want to touch on. The first is that however much we might want to believe that every child’s special needs can be coped with, there are times when those special needs consist of problems that inflict real harm on other children. The most awful parental complaints that came across my desk were about children who had been seriously assaulted and harmed, on occasion raped, by another child who had been admitted by a school either conscientiously trying to include a child for whom the local authority was desperate to find a place or that had been directed to take a child. That is agonising to learn about. We have to acknowledge that the interests of other children need to be considered when placing the most difficult children. That is important for children most of all but, of course, it is important for staff as well. If people are trying to work outside their capacity, schools tend to deteriorate, and that is not good for anybody.
Linked to that, I want to make a point about off-rolling, which has been touched on. In my time we put more of an emphasis on looking for signs and pursuing that—inquiring into it—where we found it. One of the things we discovered is that it is extraordinarily hard to characterise definitively whether an individual case is a case of off-rolling. There is typically quite a long history, a deterioration of the relationship between the child and the school. It is not a clean and tidy yes or no. Getting to a point where you could definitively say what the extent was would be extremely labour-intensive. The issue, in my view, is not a lack of regulation to prevent this—inspection is perfectly capable of disincentivising it—but we have to acknowledge that it needs a lot of resource that simply does not exist in Ofsted or anywhere else to dig into individual cases and establish the extent and the remedies.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I will speak on Amendments 198, 199 and 230. I will give some historical background. The word “education” is derived from two Latin root words. The first is “educare”, which means to impart knowledge. For too long, some schools have seen themselves as imparting knowledge. They have emphasised too much that first root of the word, “educare”.
The other Latin root word is “educere”, which means to draw out knowledge. The best schools often do both. They impart knowledge but they also realise that a person is not a blank sheet of paper on whom you simply impart knowledge and do not draw out the best that is in them. In most schools that do both, the pupils all thrive.
That being the case, I think we have gone through a short-term revolution. Her Majesty’s inspectors, as they were then, saw themselves as helping the school to do better. Then Ofsted arrived and seemed to give simple judgments on the school, sometimes on very narrow elements. If the school failed one of its elements, it was totally judged to be a failing school.
I declare an interest here. The Archbishop Thurstan School in Hull had been there for many centuries. It was not performing as it should be and, therefore, there was a decision by the Secretary of State that it should be rebuilt. The council agreed to have it rebuilt and that it should be given a name that would be canvassed for in Hull. To my surprise, the pupils, staff and council decided that it should be called the Archbishop Sentamu Academy. That was the beginning of academisation.
We were very fortunate that the Labour Government, who lost the election in 2010, had agreed to provide the money. I was told by John Prescott, “Be quick, make sure that you get this money, because the new Government may not want this to happen”. Anyway, we got the £45 million and the place was rebuilt; the place was thriving. Students in Hull were thriving and doing excellent work for the first time, going to university for the first time. Four of them went to the University of Liverpool to read maths, which had never been dreamed of.
So the school was doing well but, as it went on, there was a problem in one of the departments and there was an Ofsted inspection, which said, “The school has failed”. If a school fails, the schools commissioner has a job to do: the school has to be brokered and brought into a much larger group, and that is what happened. What shocked me was that Ofsted would not then visit that school for three years. I said, “As a parent, if I had a child in that school and you judged it to be failing, I would like to know whether it had improved by the following year”.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak against Amendment 199, and I am following the very wise words of my noble friend Lady Morris in doing so. I just do not understand how this amendment would allow the management of school places and the good use of taxpayers’ money. Year 7 places in the capital, London, are expected to fall by 7.6% in the next five years and reception places by 6.4% in the next four years. That means that those schools will see altogether about a £45 million cut in their budget. That cannot just be left to chance.
There needs to be a way of managing the school population, ensuring that taxpayers’ money is well spent and that children are placed in schools that are viable and have enough pupils that they can be offered a full curriculum. We do not want the situation in Northern Ireland, where the grammar schools fill up and the secondary modern schools are left with completely variable roles year on year and are unable to offer a full curriculum or to give the children in Northern Ireland who most need it the education they deserve.
Amendment 199 would take market forces to a ridiculous level and would mean that the Government and the local area could not manage school places to ensure a broad and balanced curriculum for each child. That would be particularly the case with the new curriculum, which will be broader and more balanced and is long overdue. It is important to reject Amendment 199 because there needs to be a mechanism for the most vulnerable children.
I am afraid I have to disagree with the former chief inspector. Everyone knows there are certain schools that do not take the children with special educational needs that they should, and that other schools are then dumped on since they have to take far too many children with profound special needs, to the real detriment of those children and other pupils in the class. Everyone knows that in reality, that happens. The noble Lord, Lord Nash, is nodding—it is true.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
Can the noble Baroness say at what point I said that there were schools which did not take children? I do not think I did.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
If that was the case, let me apologise for saying that. They have got better at inclusion, and the noble Baroness is quite right to upbraid me on that.
However, it is really important that there is a power to direct schools to take pupils in order that they get an education. Secondly, we need a way of organising an admissions system which allows all children within the locality to have a viable education with a full, broad and balanced curriculum.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, some of the points the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, makes are important to consider. But let me remind the House that, over the years, Governments of various political persuasions have said how important it is that there is parental choice. They have encouraged parents to look at a school’s results, to read its prospectus, and to visit the school. Sometimes it is done by word of mouth. Sometimes those parents even look at how the children behave at the bus stop while they are waiting to go home of an evening.
I guarantee that nearly every single person sitting in this Chamber wanted the best possible school for their child. There were Members of different political parties who espoused strong views on this issue but, when it came to their own children, they often chose a school which was not in the local catchment area or was not the school the child was subscribed to go to. In some cases, they chose an independent or private school. The body politic has encouraged the notion of parental choice. We know that, as pupil numbers rise, this puts all sorts of pressures on schools and becomes very hard to deliver in all sorts of ways.
I am sorry to go on about Liverpool, but it is my home city and I learn lessons from it. I remember in the late 1960s and the 1970s, the then council decided to build two brand new state-of-the-art comprehensives: Paddington, in the inner city, and Netherley, in the north. They were built as 12-form entry schools. They had fantastic facilities: drama, you name it. The parents preferred the small secondary schools with three-form and four-form entry. Various Secretaries of State wrestled with this problem as the numbers dropped and dropped. I remember going to see Shirley Williams, then Secretary of State for Education, and saying, “Look, Paddington comprehensive is now only a two-form entry school. Why not make it into a tertiary college?” She said no, and I used to tease her about that decision. This is not an easy thing to do. We know that primary numbers are declining—the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, gave the figures. In Liverpool, we can already see that even so-called popular primary schools have spare capacity.
How do we sort this problem out? The answer is not to try to be the professor of admission numbers, chopping numbers off here and adding them there. Sadly, we have to do what we promised parents: we have to let them decide. The answer is not to say that we are going to make a particular school survive—as in the case of Paddington—by reducing the form entry, or, in some cases, closing a school so that children have to go to another particular school. That is not the answer at all.
I hate to say this—I never thought I would say this in my political career—but I think we have to let educational market forces take their course. If we believe in, and have promised parents, parental choice, we have to allow that. To say that we should cut the form entry—the PAN—of so-called popular schools is not the solution. Actually, there are academies that are not popular. Let us not think that all academy schools are going to gain from this. I know several academies—I will not name them—where numbers have dropped dramatically. Again, that is because of parental choice, and that is probably the right thing. So when it comes to this amendment, I will have to hold my nose but I think it is probably the right thing to do.
On Amendment 198, the noble Baroness, Lady Morris—as always—said what we on these Benches think. I say to my noble friend Lord Addington that I have never understood off-rolling. I can see children being taken off roll because their parents want to move or want to take them out of the school. I can see off-rolling when a pupil is permanently excluded from school. I can see off-rolling where a child has special educational needs which cannot be met at the school. But I cannot understand how schools were allowed to off-roll pupils for no particular reason at all. There are examples of where parents were given advice by schools which was not the right way to progress. I just think that off-rolling should not happen at all. In fact, I said to my noble friend Lord Addington, “Why do we need to review the practice? Isn’t the practice just not allowed, and we move on?” I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I just want to respond briefly to a couple of the remarks that were made about the amendments in my name. In relation to Amendment 198, I thank my noble friend Lord Nash for adding his name but also for making the case that we need more special schools and more alternative provision. I hope the Minister will have something to say on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, said—I wrote it down—that we were giving schools reasons not to take a child. But the reason is the other children in the classroom. I was not trying to suggest that that is easy. I am just saying that there is one child who needs the right place, and we should do everything we can to make that happen, but there are 29 other children who also need to learn and to be able to study safely.
I turn to Amendment 199. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, put it well when he said that it feels like we are punishing successful schools. That is the worry. Again, going back to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, the new school that is improving is exactly the example that would be allowed to continue to grow. I think perhaps she misunderstood my remarks about that. In relation to a situation such as Camden, as she knows, first of all, my amendment would not apply. You would have to make an appropriate plan in exactly the way that she described, but we are talking about areas where you have schools performing at very different levels and it is the best schools that are forced to reduce their numbers. The noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, describes that as market forces gone to “ridiculous” levels. I just think it is about respecting parent choice, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
With respect to the amendments in the first group, let me be completely clear that this Government are committed to ensuring that all children, especially the most vulnerable, can access a school place where they can achieve and thrive. The whole range of measures in the Bill reflects this objective.
Amendment 198, from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would introduce specific requirements for local authorities when using their powers to direct a school to admit a child. I agree with the noble Baroness that local authority decisions on directing the admission of a child should be reasonable, account for the needs of the child and ensure that schools can meet those needs. As noble Lords have argued, I accept that there is more that needs to be done to ensure that all schools can provide for the needs of children with special educational needs, and that sometimes it is more appropriate for those children to be educated elsewhere. We will address that challenge, which is wider than we are discussing today, in our forthcoming White Paper.
Baroness Barran
“(5A) The adjudicator may not issue a direction under this section requiring the governing body of a maintained school or the proprietor of an Academy to reduce the school’s published admission number unless satisfied that—(a) the direction is necessary and proportionate to secure the efficient and effective use of education provision within the local authority area, and(b) the school—(i) is not operating at or above its current published admission number, and(ii) has not, within the period of three years preceding the direction, been assessed by His Majesty’s Chief Inspector as providing education that is of a high quality.(5B) For the purposes of subsection (5A)(b)(ii), a school shall be regarded as providing education of a high quality where—(a) the most recent inspection carried out under section 5 or section 8 of the Education Act 2005 (duty to inspect schools) concludes that the quality of education at the school is effective or better, or(b) any equivalent finding is made under an inspection framework that succeeds that in force at the passing of this Act.(5C) Before issuing a direction under this section requiring a reduction in a school’s published admission number, the adjudicator must consider whether the objective could more appropriately be achieved by means of changes to the pattern of provision in the area, including (where appropriate) the amalgamation or closure of schools, in accordance with any applicable statutory and departmental guidance on school organisation.(5D) In exercising functions under this section, the adjudicator must have regard to—(a) the desirability of giving effect to parental preferences for schools, and(b) the need to avoid measures that would unduly restrict access to schools that are providing high-quality education or that are in strong demand from parents.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to limit the circumstances in which the schools adjudicator may direct a maintained school or academy to reduce its published admission number and requires the adjudicator to consider alternative school organisation measures (including amalgamation or closure) before constraining the intake of popular or high quality schools.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I appreciate the noble Baroness’s concession of updating the admissions code but, unfortunately, as quickly as it can be updated it can also be re-updated, so I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
“(5) In section 10 of the Academies Act 2010 (consultation: new and expanded educational institutions), in subsection (1)(a) omit the words from “other” to “authority),”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the duty to consult under section 10 of the Academies Act 2010 on whether Academy arrangements should be entered into would also apply to new educational institutions that are the subject of proposals pursuant to a notice under section 7 of Education and Inspections Act 2006.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, we now move to the group on opening new schools. Our priority is that good schools are opened when they are needed. Amendment 202 would amend Section 10 of the Academies Act 2010, relating to the establishment of new academies.
Currently, where academies are established under Section 6A of the Education and Inspections Act 2006—known as the “free school presumption” process—trusts are required to consult before deciding whether to enter into a funding agreement to run the academy. Section 6A will be repealed by the Bill and new academies will be established under Section 7 instead. This amendment is therefore necessary to retain a requirement to consult, meaning that relevant parties will be invited to comment on the details of the plan for the academy, including the planned admission arrangements. I beg to move.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 203 in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran. Free schools have played an important role in raising educational standards over the last 15 years, with their benefits felt most strongly in communities that have needed them the most. As I set out during our discussions in Committee, last summer’s exam results underline their impact: free schools outperformed other non-selective state schools at GCSE and A-level, pushing up standards, particularly in areas of significant deprivation and low educational achievement. Giving school leaders the autonomy to innovate, whether through a longer school day and more stretching curriculum or developing closer links with business and universities, clearly has a measurable impact on school outcomes.
This success continues: only last week, 62 students—over a quarter of the year group—at the London Academy of Excellence, one of the earliest free schools to open, learned they had secured Oxbridge offers, surpassing the success of many of the country’s leading independent schools. This outstanding achievement makes it even more regrettable that, in December, the Government chose not to go ahead with a new sixth-form free school in Middlesbrough, backed by Eton and Star Academies, which aimed to deliver similar outcomes for its students. It was one of 26 proposed mainstream free schools that were cancelled after a long delay, to the dismay of the teachers, parents and communities that had championed their plans.
It is not just one free school or trust making a huge difference: research from the NFER shows pupils attending secondary free schools get better grades at GCSE, have lower absence rates and are more likely to take A-levels and to go to university. Will the Government publish the quantitative thresholds that were used to judge community need, demographic demand and the impact on existing schools that lay behind the recent cancellation of each of the 28 mainstream free school projects, and will they publish the assessment scores for each cancelled project? This would be extremely helpful information and a transparent way for the groups that put a lot of effort into these projects, and the parents, who obviously may not have been privy to conversations with the DfE, to understand the reasons for the decisions.
Free schools have provided a route for new ideas, energy and educational models to join the state system. Indeed, the Government themselves have acknowledged that
“the free schools programme has been crucial to meeting demographic need and pioneering new models that can raise standards”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/12/25; col. 45WS.]
Yet Clause 58 will mean fewer chances to innovate and less opportunity for the best-performing academies to expand and replicate their models. It is disappointing that the Government, despite some of their words, seem unwilling in practice to recognise the contributions free schools have made, and indeed could continue to make, to improving our education system—an achievement in which we should all take pride.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I wonder if the Minister in her reply could tell us this? Presumably, some of these schools are not going ahead not just because of the demographics but because the birth rate is falling in that area and, going back to our previous discussion, it would be stupid to build new schools if we are seeing the birth rate decline.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I shall make the case that Clause 58 should not stand part of the Bill, as set out in my Amendment 203. I am bringing this back because, in Committee, the Minister gave what I think is the most cursory response that I received over the course of the Bill. She said:
“The current system allows local authorities to propose new schools only as a last resort or in very limited circumstances. Local authorities hold the statutory responsibility to secure sufficient school places in their area, and it is right that we give them greater ability to fulfil that duty effectively. These changes will enable consideration of any local offer that meets the needs of children and families”.—[Official Report, 16/9/25; col. 2114.]
I then wrote to the Minister to ask how often local authorities had been unable to meet these duties effectively. The reply stated:
“The department does not collect data on how many times local authorities run a process to open a new school, but as you know, some regions have many more academy trusts operating in them than others; and under the high-quality trust framework, some trusts are considered much stronger than others in terms of governance, finances and educational expertise”.
So, once again, the Government have no firm evidence that there is a problem that needs solving.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As we have heard, group 2 relates to opening new schools. Amendment 203, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would remove Clause 58 from the Bill. Clause 58 ends the legal presumption that new schools should be academies always and allows a wider range of proposals for new schools to be put forward.
During Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, argued that the presumption process has worked well and raised concerns about the capacity of local authorities to deliver new schools. We provided her with further information on these points at her request. I emphasise again that we recognise the contribution that academies make to high and rising standards.
On the particular points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, on the free school pipeline, just to be clear, we are proceeding with those mainstream projects that meet the needs of communities, respond to demographic and housing demand and will raise standards without undermining the viability of existing local schools and colleges. We will back new schools that offer something unique for students who would otherwise not have access to it, but, again, we need to understand the context in which we are operating. Primary pupil numbers have been falling since 2018-19. That decline is set to feed into secondary. Creating new free schools now risks adding surplus capacity while demographic need declines.
Free schools have been a very positive addition to our school system, but, since 2010, over £300 million has been spent on over 53 schools that subsequently closed: money that could have been invested in places for children with special educational needs or in addressing urgent condition needs in existing schools. It is important that we plan these school places and these new openings carefully. We continue to back academy schools and are encouraging high-quality trusts to grow, for example by confirming that the outstanding Star Academies trust will be able to progress the Eton Star Dudley and Oldham projects, which will support young people in disadvantaged areas to progress to top universities, as we have heard.
In Teesside, the decision not to proceed reflects careful consideration of the likely impact on existing good-quality provision. Our assessment of the local context in each area indicated that there was a higher potential risk to the sustainability of the existing academic provision in Teesside than in Dudley and Oldham, which could not be mitigated by conditions. That is why the decision was taken not to proceed in Teesside but to proceed in Dudley and in Oldham. We also undertook to explore with Eton Star whether learners can be supported in a different way through its work.
I do not apologise for the Government taking responsible decisions about how we spend public money on high-quality but also sustainable provision for the future. In relation to special needs schools, for high-needs places we are offering most local authorities the option of per-place funding to deliver the same number of specialist places differently or to continue with their special or AP free school. The measure in Clause 58 will still provide a route for strong trusts to open new schools. We know that high-quality trusts exist in many areas of the country, but not everywhere. In many areas, we expect proposers of new schools to be predominantly or even exclusively high-quality academy trusts, but in other areas, the right trust may not be immediately available to provide the school that is needed. That is why Clause 58 provides flexibility and will support local authorities in fulfilling their sufficiency duty by allowing a wider range of proposals from different bodies and for different types of schools to be considered from the start of the process. This will better enable good local schools to open when needed. Given that, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment and support Clause 58.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove provision no longer needed because of the new general data protection override in section 183A and effect of 183B of the Data Protection Act 2018, both inserted by section 106 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 which came into force on 20 August 2025.
Lord Norton of Louth
“Review of the Act(1) The Secretary of State must—(a) carry out a review of the operation and effect of this Act,(b) set out the conclusions of the review in a report,(c) publish the report, and(d) lay a copy of the report before Parliament.(2) The report must be published before the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, this is a big Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has spent many hours at the Dispatch Box justifying its provisions. This amendment enables her to demonstrate her confidence that it will deliver what she claims for it. The amendment requires the Secretary of State within five years of the passage of the Act to undertake a review of its operation and effect.
Post-legislative scrutiny is essential to ensuring that the laws we enact meet the various criteria of good law. The case for it has been accepted by government since 2008. It results from the report of the Constitution Committee in 2004 entitled Parliament and the Legislative Process. The Government referred the committee’s recommendations on post-legislative scrutiny to the Law Commission, which endorsed the proposal. The Government then announced that Acts would be subject to review by departments three to five years after enactment, with the reviews being published. It was then up to Parliament to decide whether to undertake detailed scrutiny. In the Commons, this has been by departmental Select Committees. In this House, since 2012, we have usually appointed each year a special inquiry committee to undertake post-legislative scrutiny of an Act or of a particular body of legislation, such as adoption law.
In practice, scrutiny by departmental Select Committees in the Commons has been somewhat sporadic. The committees have other priorities. Our practice has been to be highly selective. We cover only a fraction of measures that have reached the statute book in recent years. Those reviews that have been undertaken have variously demonstrated how Acts have been misunderstood or misinterpreted.
We are now being overtaken by other legislatures in engaging in extensive and rigorous post-legislative scrutiny. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said in Committee that she had been able to advise foreign Parliaments on the significance of post-legislative scrutiny. The Westminster Foundation for Democracy has done especially valuable work in promoting its use. The result is that we are now falling behind many other legislatures. That includes within the United Kingdom: Holyrood has had a dedicated committee on post-legislative scrutiny that has been effective. The Ukrainian Parliament, despite obvious pressures, has engaged in significant post-legislative scrutiny.
The Government accept the case for post-legislative scrutiny; the problem is in delivering it. The case for it is compelling. It is essential that Acts of Parliament achieve what they are intended to achieve. Some Acts prove a disaster—those, we tend to hear about—but others may have unintended, albeit not disastrous, consequences. Some may be stillborn. There may be problems with application and interpretation. We cannot know that an Act has achieved its goals without undertaking a thorough review and, in effect, as I said in Committee, completing a legislative feedback loop. Success in legislative terms should not be seen as getting a measure on the statute book—which historically has been how Ministers have tended to see it—but rather in delivering what it is intended to achieve.
The problem is in ensuring that post-legislative scrutiny is undertaken. If there was rigorous and consistent scrutiny, this amendment would be unnecessary. However, not all departments undertake such scrutiny. Some are better than others. As I said, departmental Select Committees in the Commons vary in their willingness to pursue such scrutiny. The danger is that Bills that merit such scrutiny will not receive it. There is nothing to guarantee that they will. As I argued in Committee, there is a case for putting on the face of the measure provision for post-legislative scrutiny where the Bill is large, complex, makes substantial changes to the law, is contested, and has not been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. This Bill qualifies under those criteria.
In Committee, the Minister stressed that she was part of the Government who accepted the recommendations of the Constitution Committee and put on record that the Bill will be reviewed within five years. This was very welcome, but she did not put forward an argument as to why the requirement for post-legislative review should not be in the Bill. To say that there will be a review is not so much an argument against the amendment as the basis for accepting it. Putting it in the Bill would guarantee that there will be a clearly structured review, not one that may be undertaken by a department as a tick-box exercise. Accepting the amendment would make clear the Government’s commitment to post-legislative scrutiny and their confidence in the provisions of the Bill.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. Since coming to this House 16 years ago, I have been fortunate in the ballot for one-year inquiries—in which we are often encouraged to recommend post-legislative scrutiny—to have successfully brought forward one-year inquiries into two pieces of legislation which I was fortunate enough to take through the House of Commons. The first was the Mental Capacity Act 2005; it was subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, but some years later there was still quite a lot that we had to recommend adjusting in it. Secondly, and most recently, last year there was the review of the Autism Act 2009—a very small Bill that might not have needed post-legislative scrutiny when it was passed.
I support the noble Lord. It is quite worrying that there is no structure to the way we identify Bills or any form of legislative commitment to this being carried out. This applies to both Houses, although the expertise in this House lends itself to post-legislative scrutiny and the time involved in doing it is probably more suited to this House than another place. I support him because, sometimes, when we legislate—I think most of us have had this experience—there is a tendency to think that, if we are not quite sure that it says what we mean, the courts will sort it out. That is a very sloppy and dangerous way of legislating, so I support the noble Lord in what he has said.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling the government amendment, which His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support. We also thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for his amendment. He has been described in the media as the United Kingdom’s greatest living expert on Parliament and a world authority on constitutional issues. He is entirely correct that post-legislative scrutiny is essential for any public Act, but it is especially important for Bills as substantial as this. By the conclusion of Report, we will have debated over 10 amendments seeking reviews of various aspects of the Bill, which surely highlights how wide ranging its impact is expected to be. An all-encompassing review would combine these amendments and, most importantly, allow the Government to evidence the positive change that they believe this Bill will put into effect. Some form of post-legislative scrutiny is the right vehicle, and the noble Lord’s amendment would serve as the foundation stone of that verification.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in group 3 concern a review of the Act on commencement. Amendment 205 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. I too recognise his continued dedication to this matter, echoing the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and his undoubted experience and expertise in this area. As my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern set out in Committee, I am pleased to reassure the noble Lord again that the department understands the importance of the legislative feedback loop, as he described it clearly then and again this afternoon, and is committed to that. However, we believe this amendment cuts across what is a perfectly clear set of cross-government expectations for post-legislative scrutiny.
The question he poses is: why did we not undertake pre-legislative scrutiny? The Government give consideration to which Bills will be published in draft, taking into account the overall requirements of the legislative programme and how to ensure that time is used as efficiently as possible. The Government did not consider the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill necessary for pre-legislative scrutiny, and therefore did not publish it in draft. We wrote to the Education Select Committee upon introduction of the Bill in the House of Commons and provided a briefing opportunity with officials before its Second Reading.
The noble Lord has previously raised issues in this House with the current process for such scrutiny. The process seeks to ensure that the chair of the Commons Select Committee has adequate information to decide whether to instigate a fuller inquiry, and we would expect to undertake that fuller inquiry given the importance of this Bill. However, as he will know, should they decide not to, that inquiry can be taken up by another interested parliamentary committee of either House.
In Committee, the noble Lord noted that the Government included post-legislative scrutiny in the Football Governance Act. I am not sure if others in the Chamber were subjected to the passage of the Football Governance Bill, but it was an interesting process. That was a single-issue Bill, so it was deemed appropriate for that Bill. However, that does not mean it is appropriate for all Bills, as I am sure noble Lords will be aware. This Bill covers a broad range of measures, with different timelines for implementation and different evaluation needs. I think we would all agree, for example, that the rollout of a single unique identifier is quite different from the rollout of breakfast clubs.
None the less, alongside our commitment to post-legislative scrutiny, we have committed to a post-implementation review as part of the Better Regulation Framework. We published our plans in the impact assessment for this Bill, on which the RPC rated us green, for how we will monitor and evaluate the transformative measures that will change the lives of millions of children and young people. I hope that noble Lords are reassured. I repeat that commitment now, for good measure: we will undertake post-legislative scrutiny for this Bill, but it is not needed to be included the Bill when it is already an expectation.
On government amendment 246, Clause 67 currently provides that
“any provision of or amendment made by Part 1 or 2, so far as it confers or relates to a power to make regulations or an order”,
will come into force on the day the Act is passed. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for his support for the amendment. It will clarify that, by order, we mean secondary legislation. The only instance of secondary legislation order in the Bill is Schedule 3, which amends the Education Act 2002 to provide that the Secretary of State may by order make provision requiring the remuneration of an academy teacher to be at least equal to the amount specified in or determined in accordance with the order. The amendment would ensure that it is clear what order the Bill is referring to.
I hope I have addressed the noble Lord’s concerns, and that he feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, the Minister’s response is disappointing. I am grateful to the two Front Benches for their very kind opening comments but in terms of the substance of the amendment, I thought the Minister’s comments reinforced the case for post-legislative scrutiny; she spent some time explaining why the Bill has not been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, which I would have thought adds to the case for subjecting it to post-legislative scrutiny. She referred to the Football Governance Act, which just dealt with one particular issue, whereas this Bill is very wide-ranging. There is therefore scope for a lot of things to go wrong, which I would have thought reinforced the case for checking that the Bill has delivered on all aspects of what the Government seek to achieve with it.
The value of committing to post-legislative scrutiny is the Government demonstrating that they have confidence in the measure. If there is to be a review anyway, why not put that on the face of the Bill? At least critics of it would then know that it will definitely be subject to review—it is in the Bill, and that will happen. That is one of the arguments for post-legislative scrutiny of the Football Governance Act.
As I say, I am disappointed with the response. I shall keep coming back to the case for putting provision for post-legislative scrutiny on the face of Bills that meet the criteria I have outlined, and will press the Government to have the courage of their convictions. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Citizenship education: British values(1) In any statement relating to British values for education purposes at primary and secondary level in England and Wales, the Secretary of State, OFSTED and any other public authority must include—(a) democracy,(b) the rule of law,(c) freedom,(d) equal respect for every person, and(e) respect for the environment.(2) Any statement in subsection (1) must refer to British values as “values of British citizenship”.(3) The values listed under paragraphs (1)(a) to (e) must be taught as part of citizenship education for key stages 1, 2, 3 and 4.(4) In section (1)(a) “democracy” includes—(a) an independent judiciary,(b) in a Parliamentary system, a Government that is accountable to Parliament, regular election, and(c) decentralised decision-making, accountable at an appropriate level to the electorate.(5) In subsection (1)(c) “freedom” includes—(a) freedom of thought, conscience and religion,(b) freedom of expression, and(c) freedom of assembly and association.(6) In subsection (1)(e) “respect for the environment” means taking into account the systemic effect of human actions on the health and sustainability of the environment both within the United Kingdom and the planet as a whole, for present and future generations.”
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 206 is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and, before he retired, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. It is also strongly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who hoped to be here this afternoon, but I see that he is not in his place yet.
I apologise to those, including the Minister, who have heard me on this subject before in other contexts. I am persisting with it because I believe that the Government are missing a great opportunity. With so much now dividing our society, what should unite us are fundamental British values. Deeper than the differences of race, religion and sexuality are the political institutions and values which hold our society together. The Government could, and should, be making much more of them. One reason I believe this is not the case is that the original formulation of these values was done as part of the Prevent programme and, as a result, they are somewhat skewed, as I hope to show.
My amendment is designed to make these values clearer and more balanced. Fundamental British values as at present defined are democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. Democracy and the rule of law are of course fundamental. But because the emphasis is on mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs, which of course I strongly support, the balance is somewhat wrong and there is a serious omission, notably the equal value and worth of each individual. The values in my amendment are set out as democracy, the rule of law, freedom, equal respect for every person and respect for the environment.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 208 in this group. It is a pleasure to follow the noble and right reverend Lord. While I might not agree with everything he said, the debate on British values was an extremely common theme of my time in the Department for Education. It is a commentary on the world we live in that we now need to define what we mean by democracy, but I do not disagree with the point the noble and right reverend Lord made. I thank other noble Lords who added their names to Amendment 208: the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
As this amendment was debated in Committee, I will not take too long to introduce it. But I also do not think that I really need to convince the Government Front Bench, given that, just before Christmas, we had the arrival of the Government’s long-awaited violence against women and girls strategy. It was good to see the commitment:
“The Minister for Skills is exploring the most effective route to make Relationships and Sex Education … mandatory for young people under 18 in further education colleges”.
Unknown to many—including, presumably, some noble Lords in this House—and rather extraordinarily, hundreds of thousands of young people aged 16 to 18 are currently excluded from the benefits of relationships and sex education if they happen to be in further education colleges. This is despite the fact that this group experiences, for example, the highest rates of domestic abuse. An estimated 608,000 students aged 16 to 18 study in either further education or sixth-form colleges in England. Although further education colleges can deliver relationships and sex education on a voluntary basis, provision is inconsistent, unmonitored and often with scant training or support for those who are asked to teach it.
The campaign has the support of the Association of Colleges. I am also grateful to the Let Me Know young people advocates, Tabitha and Angela, who spoke so movingly at a briefing last week for Members of this House on why the extension of this education is needed for their age group. I also pay tribute to the efforts of Faustine Petron of Make It Mandatory, a survivor and formidable campaigner who identified the gap in education for this age group, having been unsupported during her own experience of relationship abuse. Some 105,000 people have now backed her petition.
Recent research from the Institute for Addressing Strangulation shows that almost half—43%—of sexually active 16 and 17 year-olds have been strangled during sex, and 70% of young people surveyed by the Children’s Commissioner have seen porn routinely featuring rape, strangulation and incest. This House and the other place have rightly been introducing, discussing and amending legislation on issues such as nudification apps, violent online pornography, harmful and abusive content across social media, and the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. That is why, at the same time, we must support the creation of space in the curriculum for all 16 to 18 year-olds—the very age group most likely to be having to deal with the reality of these and other relevant issues—so that they receive a proper education on these matters. As the young people I met last week said, for them, these issues are not theoretical. The more than 600,000 young people in further education colleges have as much right to that curriculum as the rest of their peers.
I am grateful to the Minister for her engagement on this issue. I shall listen very carefully to what she says. As I say, I think she agrees with the overall thrust of this amendment. If this is not the right Bill, which I think reflects the conversation that she and I had, I ask her to say which one would be, and, if one of those who support this change were fortunate enough to secure the ability to bring forward some legislation sooner than the next Department for Education Bill, I would be grateful if the Government would indicate their support for it.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 220, relating to the guidance for schools on gender-questioning children, which is still long overdue and which I think we have to ensure happens as quickly as possible. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for having pursued this and for tabling her amendments.
This is incredibly important and necessary to clarify issues for parents, for teachers in understanding and knowing exactly how they might deal with the difficult questions around gender-questioning children, and of course for children themselves. Obviously, this relates to some of the controversy and the failure to issue the EHRC code in relation to the guidance coming from the Supreme Court judgment, but it stands on its own terms.
When I talk to teachers and parents, there is still a lot of confusion about the demands of the Equality Act 2010’s gender reassignment protected characteristic and how one deals with that, and duties in relation to it, and how that might clash with, for example, safeguarding or free speech. That leaves teachers exposed and unclear.
I want to refer to what it feels like for parents who, across the UK, have been shocked to discover what their children have been taught or told in classrooms and have sounded the alarm on some teachers covering highly sexualised age-inappropriate content with young pupils and, in some schools, even affirming children in their gender identity—that is, social transitioning—without the consent or knowledge of their parents. It is understandable that that has caused alarm. For three to four year-old children just starting to learn to tell fact from fiction, the difference between make-believe games with friends pretending to be princesses, playing families or whatever and telling children at this stage that a person can literally change from one sex to another can be hugely confusing. I understand that this is not the Government’s intention and that they want to clarify it, but that is why I think the guidance should be urgently introduced and explained to schools and the Government should make clear what is and is not permissible.
Too often, it is left up to grass-roots activists otherwise. Recently, an article hit the media about a group of women—one a retired midwife, another a retired solicitor and another a mum of two—from a group called Protect and Teach who said that many schools do not have the appropriate safeguards in place. They are especially worried about outside organisations being invited in to effectively teach children, some as young as primary school, about inclusiveness, which might sound harmless until you look at the kinds of teaching materials used by these third-party organisations that research shows have very flawed policies, muddling up sex in the Equality Act 2010 with sexual identity and gender.
That is one of the reasons why we have concerns. Some of the work the group did, for example, showed that 75% of Church of England schools had problematic policies in relation to, for example, anti-bullying policies, which are not directly related, but practically all the material used in those policies focused on transgender identity, not bullying in any other way. The message of this was that affirmation was the way forward and young people needed to be kept safe from polarised debates, which would indicate a one size fits all. So I am straightforwardly saying that we need clear guidance. The Government must issue that clear guidance. Schools need help with this. It is not easy—nobody is saying it is—but what we cannot do is just leave it open.
I will make one final point on Amendment 206 from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. I commend him for doggedly and persistently pushing this amendment, which I have heard a number of times. I commend his celebration of British values, because I think that is important, and I have said that before, although I do not agree with the content of all the British values listed. The “respect for the environment” paragraph is particularly contentious and weak: I have written “twaddle” here. That is probably not a parliamentary word, but I have written it down.
The section on democracy includes that the Government should be accountable to Parliament, which is something we could learn a lesson from. The Government are not always accountable to Parliament—there are far too many Henry VIII clauses, in my view. It also notes that democracy, as a value, should mean regular elections, which would suggest that you should not cancel them, as we are witnessing at the moment. It talks about the importance of the rule of law, which immediately reminded me of what is happening to jury trials. It finally says that “freedom” should include freedom of thought and conscience, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly and association. As somebody going through the Crime and Policing Bill, I did think it was perhaps worth sending the British values amendment of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, to the people pushing that Bill. I assure noble Lords that freedom of thought, expression, assembly and association are not safe under that Bill.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 208 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. The reason is very simple. I do not know how many of your Lordships have seen a documentary available on BBC iPlayer called “Lover, Liar, Predator”. For those who have not seen it, it is pretty searing. It has a happy ending in the sense that the women who were abused by this man—who started at the age of 17—in the end learned about one another, got together and very bravely faced their accuser in court. A Scottish jury found the predator guilty on all counts by a unanimous decision.
The reason I mention this is that, in almost every case, the predator seized upon young women when they were 16, 17 or 18. That is the age at which, frequently, young women—and some young men, although they are usually a bit slower on the uptake—get involved in relationships. At that age, without the right education, without understanding, frankly, the nature of some men, it is easy to get into a relationship in which one quickly loses one’s sense of self—the ability to take one’s own decisions and to direct the course of one’s life.
This was articulated at the briefing the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, kindly arranged last week, which some of us were at. Some of the students themselves spoke powerfully of their own cases, or those of people they have known who, at that vulnerable stage in their lives, growing into sexual beings, got it wrong. Given particularly that this accords completely with the Government’s new strategy, the more we can do to reinforce that and to enable this cadre of children—some several hundred thousand, which is a not insignificant number—to receive the education that all their peers in other forms of education are receiving seems a no-brainer.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 243C standing in my name and those of my noble friends in sport, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I thank them for supporting this amendment.
My amendment follows up on an amendment previously brought forward so powerfully by my noble friend Lord Moynihan in Committee, which attracted cross-party support. I am delighted that he has rejoined our Front Bench, with responsibility for energy and net zero. We will miss him from debates on sport policy. I will do my best to match his energy.
We have an ambition across the House to raise educational outcomes and improve children’s well-being. The school curriculum is currently under review, and that makes this a particularly timely moment. My amendment is offered in a constructive spirit, as was my noble friend Lord Moynihan’s, as a way of supporting the Government’s wider aims by ensuring that physical education and school sport are considered in a coherent and strategic way.
This amendment asks the Secretary of State to publish within 12 months
“a national strategy for physical education and sport in schools”,
and to review and report on it annually to Parliament. It does not advise how schools should deliver provision. Instead, it brings together existing priorities such as daily physical activity, teacher training and inclusion for disabled pupils into a single framework, with clear outcomes and accountability. To be clear, it is intended to assist and not constrain government policy.
The evidence shows that regular physical activity and engagement in school sport not only improves health and well-being but supports concentration, behaviour, attendance and attainment in literacy and numeracy, with benefits that extend into later life. Many schools are already doing great work in this area, often under significant pressure. To make this work more effective, teachers need the right resources, training and support.
While the Bill has children’s well-being in its name, it has not addressed how schools could properly use physical education, sport and physical activity to support this and improve educational outcomes. This amendment seeks to offer a fully integrated national strategy to address that gap and monitor and evaluate the best way of doing it. Data, evaluation and analysis are so important to this endeavour.
It is a strong belief, which I know is shared across this Chamber, that physical education is not merely a subject; it is a cornerstone in the development of young people, fostering health, resilience, teamwork and confidence. When embedded effectively, it can also contribute to wider educational goals, supporting behaviour, attendance and attainment across the curriculum. This amendment also encourages collaboration between education, health, sport and the voluntary sector, and provides a framework to align existing efforts in this space behind a shared national vision. It identifies the leadership role of the Minister in bringing that collaboration together and ensuring consistency of approach.
Back in 2021, I was a member of the taskforce established by the Association of Physical Education. We published a report, which issued a clear call to government to put physical education at the heart of school life. If the Government are serious, as I believe they are, about improving well-being in schools and giving every child an opportunity to thrive, this amendment would offer a constructive opportunity to consider how a national strategy for physical education and school sport could help deliver those ambitions. I therefore hope that the Minister will see this amendment in that spirit and give it careful and positive consideration.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to the House and to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for not being here at the beginning of this group. I have a member of staff who lives a normal life, and I quite rightly agreed that she should go home. As a consequence and because there is no Braille on the annunciator, I was a bit late getting in, so I will be incredibly brief.
I support Amendment 206, to which I have added my name. In the light of the Curriculum and Assessment Review, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will ensure that, now, the Department for Education gives its full and comprehensive support to the proper teaching of democracy and citizenship all the way through the curriculum, which the Government committed to in their response to the review; and that we engage with every school in the country to ensure that young people are equipped for the future, not least for the traumas and difficulties they now face.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I will speak on my Amendments 231 and then 232. Amendment 231 may be familiar to the House, as it reflects the substance of the Bill I previously brought forward on this subject, which is on spiritual, moral, social and cultural education in assemblies.
The amendment is simple in intent: it would remove the legal duty on schools without a religious character to provide daily collective worship that is wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character. This would not prevent any school holding acts of collective worship if it wishes to do so, and, despite some misunderstandings, it does not ban prayers, Christmas carols or the marking of religious festivals. It simply ends the mandatory requirement of Christian worship in schools that are non-faith schools by designation.
This is about freedom of choice and respect for the diversity of our society. When the 2021 census shows that over a third of the population of England and Wales now have no religious character, it cannot be justified that schools are still legally obliged to provide daily Christian worship.
This is not a matter of abstract principle; there is clear evidence from the profession itself that reform is wanted. A 2024 Teacher Tapp poll of senior school leaders found that around seven in 10 oppose the legal requirement for daily collective worship, with only a small minority in favour of the current law. Likewise, in its submission to the Curriculum and Assessment Review’s call for evidence, the NAHT argued that the current legal requirement for daily broadly Christian worship should be removed because it is “too prescriptive and narrow”, while emphasising the value of inclusive assemblies that reflect the diversity of the school community.
It is sometimes said that families who object can simply withdraw their children. It is true that parents have a statutory right to withdraw a child from collective worship, but in practice that can be a poor substitute for an inclusive approach. It may mean that children are separated from their peers, miss shared parts of school life or sit apart while others take part. It is notable that, in JR87, the Supreme Court considered precisely this point in the context of religious education and collective worship in Northern Ireland, recognising that reliance on withdrawal can place
“an undue burden on parents”
and risks stigmatising the child—hardly the hallmarks of a meaningful and equal choice.
Of course, I recognise that many noble Lords hold sincere views about the value of Christian worship in schools, and I respect those convictions. That is precisely why this amendment is carefully drawn. It would not change the position of schools with a religious character but would simply ensure that non-faith schools are not compelled by law to provide worship that does not reflect the views and beliefs of many of the families that they serve. In place of a daily worship requirement, schools would still provide regular assemblies that support pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development in a way that is inclusive of pupils of all faiths and none, mirroring the approach set out in proposals previously considered by this House.
Maintaining a blanket duty of daily Christian worship in schools without a religious character is increasingly out of step with the country we serve and insufficiently respectful of families with no religion. This amendment would provide more genuine choice, not less, and allow non-faith schools to be properly inclusive community schools for every child.
Amendment 232 proposes a new clause for the inclusion of non-religious beliefs in religious education. It would put it beyond doubt in statute that religious education must include teaching about non-religious beliefs, such as humanism, across all key stages. At the outset, I acknowledge that we are in the midst of the Government’s Curriculum and Assessment Review. The review is highly relevant because it concludes that
“RE’s importance is not currently reflected in its standing in the curriculum”.
It recommends that RE should be moved
“to the national curriculum in due course”,
with a staged process involving
“faith bodies, secular groups and experts from the teaching and wider education sector, to develop a draft RE curriculum”.
I welcome this direction of travel.
The review is also clear about why reform is needed, stating that RE is currently
“a basic rather than national curriculum subject”,
with content that is “not nationally defined” and local support arrangements that are “complex and fraying”, producing “uneven provision”. However, “in due course” is doing a lot of work here. Unless and until those recommendations are implemented, we will still have the present patchwork of locally agreed syllabuses and widely varying practice. It is in that context that Amendment 232 is needed. It is a modest, clarifying amendment that ensures that, whatever the structure of RE, pupils must learn about non-religious beliefs as well as religions.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 208, to which I have added my name; I also express support for the aims of Amendment 206 as a fellow member of the Select Committee which the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, mentioned.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, made the substantive case very well, so I will not add to that as I do not think it is necessary. I just remind noble Lords that supporters of the amendment, of whom there are many, called it the Massey amendment in memory of, and in tribute to, our dear late friend and colleague Lady Massey of Darwen—Doreen—who did so much for children and young people’s health and well-being.
I hope that the Government will think again and, if they are not prepared to accept this amendment, that my noble friend will give answers to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, and it will be very clear as to how exactly they going to pursue the commitment made in the very welcome VAWG strategy document.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I will very quickly add my support to Amendment 206. I shall be brief, because the points have already been made. I was a fellow traveller on the committee that considered this and I share with others a recognition of the tenacity that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, has shown with this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, reminded us of when “British values” was brought into the curriculum. It was not an easy time and it was not readily accepted. I congratulate the noble Baroness on her tenacity in getting that on the agenda.
Times are not easy now, what must be 10 years later, but it is right that we review the content of what we call British values. The teaching profession has had experience of teaching this and of organising schools that have it at their centre. We have learned a lot. The publication of the national curriculum review is an ideal opportunity to address this again.
Democracy is not taught well in schools. My noble friend Lord Blunkett is absolutely right that we do not do this well; we could do it a lot better. The need to do so is great. This amendment gives us an excellent opportunity to address that.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I reinforce what has just been said and endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said. He and I have made common cause on this for some time.
I shall be extremely brief, because I want to make just one point. It is not so much about the substance of the amendment but why, as has just been said, it is essential that we take citizenship teaching seriously in this country. It is crucial because, at the moment, there is a problem with public trust in government and in Parliament. It is slow and declining and, unless we do something about it, we are going to be in real trouble. We need to invest resources into the teaching of citizenship. That means making sure that schools take it seriously and have the incentive to do so. It is no good just saying it is in the curriculum. Schools have to realise, “We have to teach this, we’ve got the incentive to do it and we have the resources”. It cannot just be left to any teacher on a wet Wednesday afternoon to teach citizenship. It is crucial and has to be taken seriously. I regard this amendment as absolutely key to British democracy.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norton, except that I do not believe that we can put all the pressure on schools, which have so many other pressures on them.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
I totally agree. I should have said that I regard this as necessary but not sufficient.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Schools have faced so many other pressures with exams, results and Ofsted judgments, that saying “And you’ve got to shove citizenship in here, but you’re not really going to get rewarded for it” is not going to work. The direction has to come from the centre.
It is interesting that this group of amendments has been so rich and apparently so varied. Actually, what it does is talk about education that prepares students for life, not just for exams or jobs but to be citizens, members of communities, neighbours and possibly parents, and it prepares them to have healthy bodies while they are doing that. That is the only point I will make on the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, who made her point powerfully. Physical education has been totally downgraded, and that has to stop and be reversed.
In responding, I have to start with the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that respect for the environment was “twaddle”. I looked it up in the dictionary. Among the definitions were “trivial” and “foolish”. I am assuming that the noble Baroness understands that she had to breathe to be able to deliver that speech. That relies on plants, algae and cyanobacteria to generate the oxygen to allow her to breathe. So that label is obviously incorrect. I will leave that there.
I turn to Amendment 220, which the proposer, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has not yet introduced. Schools do need practical and lawful guidance, but forcing the Government to bring that guidance in on the day that the Bill becomes an Act will inhibit schools’ ability. The guidance was always intended to be non-statutory, including when it was first published in draft by the previous Government. I acknowledge that we have not yet heard from the noble Baroness, but I do not think that, in Committee, we heard any explanation of why the guidance needs to be statutory.
I will speak very briefly on the two amendments that I actually signed. Amendment 208 has been very ably spoken to by others; I am just going to make one additional point. This is about providing relationship and sex education to persons of 16 and 17 in education. Your Lordships’ House chose to call for a ban on social media for under-16s. We do not know where that will end up, but, if the ban comes in and, assuming it works, young people at 16 start accessing a whole range of previously banned material, surely, they will need the help of education and support to be able to work through, process, understand and think about that. So we should think about how those two things fit together.
The other thing is that the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, knows that I have backed her Private Member’s Bill at least twice previously. She introduced it very clearly. The one thing I will add is that, in terms of education for life, we ask schools to create more space in school time in particular for cultural and social education, but where are they going to find the time? That assembly time could be a really useful time and, if that is preparing people for life—developing cultural interests, developing artistic interests, developing a love of the theatre or a love of music, all things that help people prepare for a rich and satisfying life—that is what we need our schools to be doing much more of.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I shall very briefly add my support to Amendment 243C and, in doing so, declare my interest as a member of the board of the London Marathon Foundation. As we have heard, schools play a crucial role in the formation of lifelong activity habits, but they need to be properly supported, both to provide more opportunities within school and to ensure that what they offer meets the needs of the various interests of young people and children, to make sure that they fully engage with physical education. A national strategy would give schools the structure they need to guarantee consistently high-quality physical education, as well as help them build partnerships with community sports organisations, creating pathways that link school-based activity with accessible opportunities outside school.
In its recent submission to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee’s inquiry into community and school sport, London Marathon stressed the pressing need for national and local government, schools, governing bodies and charitable and commercial organisations to align behind tangible shared objectives to get children and young people active and, most importantly, keep them active. By mandating the publication of a national strategy for physical education and sports in schools, this amendment will be an important step to delivering just that.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I shall make a couple of brief comments on the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, introduced so well. I draw the House’s attention to proposed new subsection (2)(k). If you take part in physical activity only in educational establishments, you generally stop doing it when you leave, so getting in outside bodies to say that playing in a team at the weekend or in the evening is a reasonably normal thing to do means that you are much more likely to do it once you are outside that environment. It is something we have consistently found. It probably applies to other areas as well, but, if we are talking about a coherent sports strategy, that is one thing that the Government really must give more time and thought to.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak mainly to Amendment 206, but, as somebody who has taught more PSHE days than he cares to remember, I think I might make a few comments on this one. I have spoken many times about how I think we need to bring PSHE and citizenship much more into the regular curriculum on a weekly basis. To put my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries of Pentregarth’s mind at ease, his amendment looked to me like a scheme that could work: it is very similar to what we teach. I think that, with all due respect to several House of Lords committees, the subtle differences are not going to filter their way down to schools. I think we need to teach this. We need to make sure it is important. Teachers are very good at interpreting this, schools are very good and the basic subtleties do not really matter to me, I am afraid.
In response to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, I would say, “Please can I join the school with an hour of sport a day?” And can we hurry up as well? My daughter is in year 10: she is locked in the bathroom, but she would be really keen to hear that. If we are trying to get kids back into school and we have nearly 1 million missing school, might this not be worth trying?
I actually rose to speak to Amendment 208, and will give one quote, from Tender. If noble Lords do not know it, Tender is an unbelievable expert charity that delivers RSE to young people, from primary schools all the way to sixth form. Its CEO, Susie McDonald, said: “We are all too aware that 16 to 19 year-olds are at the highest risk of abuse in their relationships. At this critical age, young people simply cannot be left without the vital education to keep themselves and others safe. We have all seen the horrifying results, from rising levels of coercive control to the murder of teenage girls by teenage boys. We know how to prevent it: with mandatory, high-quality relationship education, all the way to 18”.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, in my view, all the amendments in this group are important and worth seriously considering. I will deal first with Amendment 206. Of course, one person’s twaddle is most people’s reality.
The Curriculum and Assessment Review is an important step along the road to what the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, wants. It will actually strengthen the current citizenship curriculum. For the first time, it brings in citizenship at primary level as well. Now that we have the review, and the parts of it that have slightly altered civic and constitutional education, for example, I do not quite understand what the next stage is of populating that curriculum, particularly for citizenship and the points that the noble and right reverend Lord’s amendment makes, such as democracy, the rule of law, freedom, respect for every person and respect for the environment.
All that is important, but the most important thing, in my view, as well as having it on the curriculum, is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, made. It is no good having a subject as important as citizenship unless you have quality teaching and staff who want to teach it, not just staff dragged in from the PE or the language department to do it. You need to have first-class materials to make that work.
On Amendment 208, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, I do not understand how a student in a school has relationship and sex education, yet a 16 year-old in a college does not. It just does not make sense. I am sure the Minister will be able to tell us that this should change, because it is hugely important. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for tabling that amendment.
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Sater and Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their important amendment. In a sense, we have gone backwards, because we used to have an hour of sport and PE on the curriculum. It was one of the initiatives introduced by the Blair Government. For some reason, it got lost or diluted. I just do not understand why. When did it suddenly fall off the cliff edge, and who was waving the banner saying we should stop this? We still must have an hour of sport and PE on our school curriculum.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for her amendments. I know some noble Lords will slightly wince at them but, with the exception of faith schools, what she is saying is happening in most of our secondary schools, and Ofsted is not reporting it. Most secondary schools that are non-faith schools are not carrying out a daily collective act of worship which is mainly Christian. It is just not happening. Maybe at some stage, whether we like it or not, we should face up to the reality of the situation.
My final question is to the Minister, on humanism. We have local SACREs, which decide what will be taught in schools in their locality. Could a SACRE minister say that humanism would be part of that religious education?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I have one substantive amendment in this group, Amendment 220, which is also signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked why the guidance needs to be statutory. I think the answer is that the issues associated with children who are questioning their gender at a young age overlaps significantly with the safeguarding responsibilities of a school and therefore should be on a statutory footing.
As we discussed in Committee, the consultation on the draft guidance for schools for children questioning their gender identity closed in May 2024, and we are now approaching the two-year anniversary of this. I must say that it is laughable that the Government think they will respond in a matter of weeks to a consultation about whether to prevent under-16s from accessing harmful and addictive social media, but it takes nearly two years and we have no response from government on the gender questioning guidance, which was in draft and had been consulted on. The Government repeatedly say they need time to get it right; I just wondered whether the Minister could give us an indication of how much time, and how much time they think they will need to get the social media issue right. It feels like, if this is two years, that might be 10 years. The Government really need to get moving to publish the guidance to safeguard our children in these schools from this very contested and harmful ideology.
I thank my noble friend Lady Sater and her cosignatories for the extremely constructive Amendment 243C, delivered with exactly the same amount of energy as our noble friend Lord Moynihan. We read in the national press about potential cuts to funding for sport in schools. I wonder whether the Minister can reassure the House that that is not the case. Sport is—I reluctantly admit, as the least athletic person in your Lordships’ House—extremely important. As we have heard, sport builds not just physical fitness but teamwork, mental resilience and an ability to meet the two imposters of triumph and disaster on the field with equanimity. I hope the Minister will give this amendment the consideration it deserves.
My noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes made the case powerfully for bringing consistency to the provision of relationships and sex education and PSHE to pupils in FE colleges. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and I tussled over his amendment back in the Schools Bill in 2022, but he remains very persuasive on this subject. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Finally, I expressed our concerns about the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, in Committee. I am afraid our position has not changed.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group address themes that are central to pupils’ development and well-being, and the values that underpin life in Britain. The Government remain committed to supporting schools and colleges with clear expectations and guidance so that they can deliver high-quality teaching that reflects the diversity of young people’s experiences and prepares them for modern life.
Amendment 206, in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, seeks to introduce and define values of British citizenship. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and as the noble and right reverend Lord admitted, I have also had the benefit of discussing this before, particularly when he introduced his Private Member’s Bill. We had a good debate, which was longer than we are going to be able to have today, on this issue and on some of the questions raised by noble Lords about how we can ensure citizenship is not only on the national curriculum but delivered effectively.
Although I agree with the sentiment, I do not believe that primary legislation is the right way to secure effective implementation. Schools already embed important values through their statutory duty to promote pupils’ spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development. They should remain free to tailor their approach, ensuring that values remain relevant to pupils’ lives.
However, we need to do more to give citizenship teaching the place it deserves on the curriculum. That is why, following the curriculum and assessment review, we will introduce new statutory citizenship teaching at primary level and an updated secondary programme of study. Consultation on that work will be under way soon, so noble Lords who have rightly engaged in the debate about the significance of citizenship teaching will be able to contribute to that.
On Amendment 208 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, as I said in Committee, we recognise the importance of supporting young people with high-quality teaching on healthy relationships. That is why personal, social, health and economic education, including sex and relationships, is taught in colleges. However, I recognise the gap in the nature of the requirement the noble Baroness identifies, particularly for further education colleges. We have begun to take action on that.
In response to calls from the further education sector, we commissioned a leading expert to create a well-evidenced range of resources to help colleges deliver high-impact relationships and sex education tutorials. I am grateful to Polly Harrow, our FE champion on this, for the work she is doing. The freely available toolkit provides high-quality lesson plans, materials and bespoke training to equip staff with the confidence needed to engage young people in conversations about misogyny, respect and consent, particularly given the context which many noble Lords have referenced this afternoon: the particular challenges for young people of this age, which I wholly accept and share their concern on.
I was particularly affected by the meeting I was able to have with Faustine Petron from the Make It Mandatory campaign, along with colleagues from the Sex Education Forum, End Violence Against Women and the Brook sexual health charity about the requirement to go further on this.
Although the Bill is not the best vehicle, as I have discussed with the noble Baroness, given this late stage in its progress and the absence of other further education measures, I intend to identify the most deliverable route to make relationships and sex education mandatory in further education. As the noble Baroness will know, I am not in a position to name Bills that may or may not be coming down the track, but she also referenced the possibility that somebody might choose this as a topic for a Private Member’s Bill. Were that to be the case, I would most certainly want to engage in supporting that making progress.
On Amendments 220 and 247 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, we have been clear about our commitment to placing children’s well-being at the centre of guidance for schools on gender-questioning children. We are clear that the Cass review’s conclusions and principles—the review was of course published since the issuing of the draft guidance—need to be reflected in it and that schools can be confident in that.
We know that concerned professionals, parents and children would welcome clarity on how schools should respond to young people who are questioning their gender. We have been carefully considering all the evidence as well as responses from the public consultation. It is essential that we take the time to get this right and to consider the best way to support schools. We will confirm next steps in due course, but our approach is clear: an evidence-led approach, clarity for schools, and children’s well-being at the centre of it.
Turning to Amendment 231 in the name of the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, this Government are committed to collective worship in schools. Schools are already required to promote spiritual, moral, social and cultural development within their curriculum and have flexibility to deliver non-religious assemblies. We plan to publish updated guidance later this year on collective worship in England to make expectations clear, including objective, pluralistic and critical delivery to give schools practical support.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, I thank all those who have supported my amendment and those who have spoken to the other amendments. First, I will comment very briefly on the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who was her usual trenchant self. The reason for including respect for the environment in this list is that this, above all, is an issue young people care about. If you want young people to care about democracy and law, the list of values must also express something they really do feel strongly about. That is the reason why that is part of the list.
How valuable it is to have the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, with us, given his front-line experience. I hesitate to respond to what he said, but he referred to this as a matter of subtleties. Rather, I would suggest that it is fundamental. The present list of fundamental values that have to be taught in schools includes the phrase “individual liberty”. It seems to me if you talked to a pupil about individual liberty and asked them what it means, they would say, “Does it mean that I can do what I want?” However, in the amendment before us, freedom is spelt out as freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and so on. It is quite specific, and it is this which needs to be taught in citizenship education.
I thank the Minister very much for her, as usual, warm reply. Maybe it would be possible for us to have a further conversation in future about how we can get some significant changes in relation to the curriculum assessment review, because it would strengthen the teaching of citizenship education to have this included. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Young of Acton
“Duty to keep schools open for in person attendance(1) So far as reasonably possible, public authorities must ensure that, during the period of any civil emergency, schools are kept open for in person attendance by children and young people.(2) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision about how public authorities should discharge the duty under subsection (1), including provision specifying—(a) steps that a public authority may or must take to comply with the duty, and(b) actions that a public authority is prohibited from taking.(3) Regulations made under subsection (2) must be made by statutory instrument.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (2) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(5) A power to make regulations under this section includes the power to make—(a) consequential, incidental, supplementary, transitional or saving provision;(b) different provision for different purposes.(6) A public authority must not, in response to a civil emergency, take or facilitate any action (including making regulations, issuing directions, issuing orders, giving guidance, or making recommendations) that—(a) results in, or encourages, the closure of schools, or(b) otherwise prevents or restricts lawful attendance at such institutions or premises by children and young people,unless the requirements of subsection (7) are met.(7) Before taking any action of the kind described in subsection (6), the public authority must first, unless the urgency of the civil emergency precludes this—(a) request the advice of the Children’s Commissioner on the likely impact of such action on the children and young people who will be affected by the action,(b) provide the Children’s Commissioner with full and complete information about the nature of and reasons for the proposed action, and(c) have due regard to the Children’s Commissioner’s advice in determining whether to proceed with the action.(8) If any action of the kind described in subsection (6) is taken prior to seeking the advice of the Children’s Commissioner due to urgency—(a) as soon as reasonably practicable and in any event within seven days of taking the action, the public authority must provide the Children’s Commissioner with full and complete information about the nature of and reasons for that action;(b) the Children’s Commissioner must then promptly, and in any event within 14 days of the action having been taken, provide the public authority with its advice in relation to the impact of that action on children and young people;(c) the public authority, having due regard to the Commissioner’s advice, shall determine whether the action continues to be justified or whether it should be revoked.(9) If action of the kind described in subsection (6) continues beyond 14 days, and in relation to each such period of 14 days thereafter, the Secretary of State must—(a) lay before Parliament a copy of the Children’s Commissioner’s advice, and(b) seek approval from both Houses of Parliament for the continuation of the action.(10) If Parliament does not approve continuation under subsection (9)(b) within 14 days of the advice of the Children’s Commissioner being laid before Parliament under subsection 9(a), the relevant action automatically lapses, and any measures (including regulations, directions, orders, guidance, or recommendations made in support of or continuance of the relevant action) become legally void.(11) Where under any of the above provisions the advice of the Children’s Commissioner is sought, the Children’s Commissioner shall set out in writing his or her advice on the following matters—(a) the foreseeable impacts of any closures of schools on the affected children and young people,(b) any reasonable actions that could be taken to mitigate those impacts,(c) whether the anticipated benefits for those children of the closures identified by the public authority appear to him or her to outweigh the foreseeable impacts of closures for those children, and(d) any other matters which appear to him or her to be relevant.(12) The Children’s Commissioner is entitled to require the public authority or the Secretary of State to provide such further information, assistance, and resources as he or she considers necessary in order to set out his or her advice on a particular action and the public authority or the Secretary of State, as the case may be, shall provide such information, assistance or resources as soon as reasonably practicable.(13) For the purposes of this section—“children” means persons under the age of 18;“civil emergency” shall include any emergency situation which could constitute an emergency for the purposes of section 1 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 or which has otherwise been identified as a risk in the UK’s National Security Risk Assessment. For the avoidance of doubt an emergency need not be the subject of measures taken under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 to be a civil emergency for the purposes of this Act;“closure” in relation to schools, means any action to discourage, restrict or prevent in person attendance at those institutions or premises by children and young people who would ordinarily be entitled to attend, or any sub-group or class of such children or young people;“open for in person attendance” in relation to schools, means being open for the attendance by all of the children who would ordinarily, and but for the occurrence of a civil emergency, be entitled to attend those institutions or premises, during their normal hours of operation;“open for in person attendance” does not include the provision of online learning or other remote learning services nor the keeping of such institutions or premises open for physical attendance only for a sub-group or class of those children or young people who would ordinarily be entitled to attend;“public authority” has the same meaning as in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 save that a court or tribunal is not included for these purposes.”Member's explanatory statement
The purpose of the amendment is to enact a statutory duty to keep schools open for in person attendance in future public health and other civil emergencies, unless Parliament expressly approves, and continues every two weeks to approve, any closures.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Knowledge Schools Trust. Amendment 207 would create a statutory duty to keep schools open for in-person attendance in future public health and other civil emergencies for all pupils, not just vulnerable children and children of key workers, unless Parliament expressly approves any closures and continues to do so every two weeks.
We await the conclusion of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, which is looking at the Government’s response to the pandemic’s impact on children and young people in module 8. I will come to some of the evidence submitted to the inquiry in due course. I think it is now widely accepted that closing schools during the pandemic for all children, save for a tiny handful, was a mistake. The evidence that it had a catastrophic impact on children is overwhelming.
I am thinking of the research and analysis published by Ofsted in April 2022, when my noble friend Lady Spielman was at its head, based on inspection evidence which highlighted delays in children’s speech and language progress and a negative impact on their personal, social and emotional development. I am thinking of research published by the IFS, the Education Endowment Foundation and the Social Mobility Commission which detailed the persistent and highly damaging impacts of school closures in exacerbating inequalities and reversing progress previously made in narrowing the attainment gap. I am thinking of the irrecoverable learning loss highlighted in a report by the University of Oxford in January 2023.
I am thinking of work done by the Centre for Social Justice which showed that some children who were told to stay at home during the pandemic never reacquired the habit of attending school, with severe absences—defined as missing at least 50% of lessons—tripling compared to pre-pandemic levels. This means that 172,938 English schoolchildren were severely absent in the summer of 2024. Incredibly, the number of persistently absent children—defined as missing at least 10% of lessons—climbed to 1.6 million last summer. I am thinking of the data accumulated by Children & Young People Now about the deterioration in children’s mental health since the school closures, with 1.3 million schoolchildren being referred to mental health support services in the school year 2023-24—a 71% increase on the pre-pandemic year of 2018-19.
Some will argue that these costs, while undoubtedly high, were outweighed by the benefits of infections averted and lives saved, but children were at negligible risk from Covid-19. According to the ONS, in England and Wales, between March 2020 and October 2022, 88 deaths were registered as due to Covid-19 for children under the age of 18. That is 0.05% of the total number of Covid deaths in the same period. To put that figure in perspective, between 1 April 2019 and 31 March 2022, 644 children died from accidents.
In any event, closing schools did not make children any less likely to become infected. A study published by the Public Health Agency of Sweden in 2020 found that infection rates were no higher among schoolchildren in Sweden, which closed sixth forms but no other schools during the pandemic, than they were in Finland, which closed all schools.
What about adults? Did closing schools protect them? We are in the realm of counterfactuals here, but the evidence from Sweden is that no, keeping schools open did not mean that more people were at risk of becoming infected and dying from Covid. According to the ONS, Sweden’s overall excess mortality between March 2020 and July 2022 was negative—lower than the pre-pandemic average and far lower than in the UK, where schools were closed. In fact, Sweden’s excess mortality during the pandemic was the lowest of all European countries save Norway. Incidentally, Norway closed schools, but the Prime Minister at the time later apologised for doing so.
The costs of closing schools were almost incalculable and the benefits non-existent. It was a catastrophic error. Nevertheless, this amendment would not rule out ever closing schools again during future health, public health or civic emergencies. All it would do is make it a statutory requirement, before schools are closed, to seek the advice of the Children’s Commissioner for England on the likely impact of such action on the children and young people affected by it and to have due regard for that advice.
I note that in her evidence to module 8 of the Covid inquiry in the autumn of last year, the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, the Children’s Commissioner at the time, said that keeping schools closed while other areas of society were open during the pandemic was “a terrible mistake”. She described the Government’s approach as showing an
“apparent lack of any serious recognition of the short-term and long-term harmful effects”
of school closures, particularly on disadvantaged pupils.
In addition, this amendment would make it necessary to secure the approval of Parliament if schools were to remain closed, with such approval needing to be renewed every two weeks. That would address one of the problems that Gavin Williamson, a former Education Secretary, raised in his evidence to the Covid inquiry last autumn—namely, that the decision to close schools in January 2021 was rushed and ill-thought-out. If, in future, Secretaries of State made similar mistakes, Parliament could correct those mistakes within two weeks.
Noble Lords may be inclined to forgive the various bodies involved in the decision to close schools during the pandemic because they had limited information about the risks that Covid-19 posed, and posed to children in particular. I am not so inclined. I believe we did know enough at the time about the negligible risk that coronavirus posed to children, and the authorities involved in the decision to close schools were given ample warning about the terrible harm that closing schools would do to children’s learning, social development and mental health, with a particular impact on disadvantaged children. Whatever our view of that mistake, I think we can now agree that it was a mistake. We should take whatever steps we can to avoid making it again. This amendment would be a vital first step. I beg to move.
Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Young of Acton, who has made a compelling case. We should be ashamed, as a nation, of the way we allowed schools to close repeatedly and for protracted periods, and the almost casual way in which that was allowed to happen.
As my noble friend has set out, this amendment is hugely important but very moderate, in that it deliberately would not preclude the possibility of closing schools should it be deemed necessary but would require some process and mechanisms to be put in place that would require consultation and thought to be given. Should the closures be continued for more than a very short period, it would then require parliamentary approval to be given. My noble friend made a compelling case, so I do not need to speak for long.
I just make the final point that it is self-evident that the substance behind this amendment is more important than any of the other issues relating to schools that we have debated and deliberated upon—because none of those matters at all if schools are closed and children are not receiving an education or the social benefits of their time in school and all the other effects that my noble friend has enumerated.
I suspect that my noble friend will not be testing the will of the House on this so I really hope that the Minister, in responding, will give reassurance about the seriousness with which this is taken and that even without this as a statutory requirement, the Government will seek to observe that kind of process and ensure both proper consultation and parliamentary approval if these actions were ever to be contemplated again.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 207 to create a duty to keep schools open for attendance. The speeches that have been made excellently explained why.
I arrived in this House during lockdown, and I was shocked—genuinely, to the core—by the ease with which people in this House on all sides clamoured to close down schools. It was an extraordinary thing to witness. I could not justify it at the time and argued against it. That argument—which was a minority argument, not just put forward by me—was treated as though somehow those of us who were worried about schools closing were the irresponsible ones; whereas I think it was the other way round. I genuinely think that many of the issues that the Bill is trying to tackle—many of the real problems and challenges that we face with young people today—were created, exacerbated and turbocharged as problems during that period. Schools were closed down, which meant that adults broke the social contract with children—not for their sake but ours—and it was against all the evidence. I am very keen to hear the Minister’s response to this, even if it is not tested in a Division of the House, as I think that this will be a huge, important lesson for us to learn.
I will note a few of the problems that have already been raised. We have a mental health crisis, which we talk about regularly—as we will later and have been throughout the Bill—as though it came out of nowhere, but there is serious reason to imagine that young people’s mental health suffered during that period. But we are also talking about behaviour. A lot of teachers will tell you that once that social contract was breached, it created discipline problems because pupils were no longer in class. We have increasing numbers of parents withdrawing their children from mainstream schools. The habit of going to school was broken. We have spent a huge amount of time in this Bill talking about home-schooling, which is going up, and that is partly because schools were no longer considered necessary. I said then that if you tell pupils that truancy is okay in certain circumstances, it will be hard to get back to normal. If you say, “You shouldn’t come into school”, it will be hard to say, “You must come into school”.
Certainly, as a teacher, I lectured young people—many a time—saying, “There is nothing more important than going to school. There is nothing, nothing, nothing more important than your education”, and then suddenly as a society we said, “Oh, there are lots of things that are more important than going to school or your education”, so they learned a very bad lesson.
We will come on to talk about the problems with smartphones. What did we do when we sent all those young people home? First of all, we told them to look at screens to get lessons—a lot of the time we did not bother even supplying the lessons on the screens—and what they did was spend a lot of time on their phones. They were not out socialising. They became desocialised—anti-social.
The final reason why we have to remember that this is so important is that a cohort of young citizens was told, “If there is a problem, you stay at home, you withdraw”. I think that if we say to young people, “If you feel ill, you aren’t up to coping with going out and being part of society”, we are creating a medicalised fragility and an acceptance of illness as a reason to withdraw that have led to massive social problems. We are now paying for that with a huge welfare bill. Many young adults now lack the resilience to become economically active.
The cost of what we did was enormous and we are yet to come to terms with it. The Bill is trying to deal with a lot of the problems created by that period, and this amendment is therefore important in raising the possibility that we should not, as a default, close schools. The default should be that we do not, that we owe it to children to have their education and that schools are kept open for attendance. There has to be an extremely good reason why schools are closed, and that should be thought through deeply. As someone who was here when we were deciding, let me assure noble Lords that it was not.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I too support the amendment. We have relied through history on a presumption that schools will stay open, even in adverse circumstances such as epidemics or bombardments. But once we closed schools for Covid, we set children adrift because there was nothing in law to balance their interests against those of adults. Children stayed locked up for months, learning little even when schools made great efforts to provide online learning.
I shall not repeat what others have said, but the story of the continuing harm to children—their academic progress, social development, health and happiness—is still unfolding. Ofsted did some of the earliest work on this in autumn 2020, when my inspectors made a series of fact-finding visits to schools and published monthly reports on the impact of Covid on schools and children. They reported that children were lonely, bored and miserable—the advance warnings of the lasting problems that we now see. I spoke about this publicly a number of times, but the tide of emotion was too strong for people to hear.
With hindsight, the existence of a formal duty and a mechanism to ensure that the available evidence, such as the reports I mentioned, is considered and weighed up against the representations of the adults who work in schools, health sector representatives, and so on might have helped to focus minds. I believe that there is an opportunity here for the Minister to get ahead of potential recommendations from the Covid inquiry.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I am sorry if I sound like a dinosaur, but I will. Hindsight is always a harsh, cruel science. It makes us think, “If only we did not do this”. The evidence is very clear; as the inquiry went on, the lessons to be drawn have not yet been concluded, and the nation needs to take those lessons into its lifeblood.
We are talking about legislating for an assurance that if a huge pandemic breaks out—or, let us say, a war—we need to go to Parliament every two weeks to consult. But perhaps Parliament will be permanently shut. I would not want us to reach a stage where we have not fully learned all the lessons. I have grandchildren who, because their parents were working, were seen as those who needed to be supported at school during the pandemic. Even then, there were infections, and shutting down schools looked like protecting children. When something like Covid happens, our first look is to the vulnerable, such as children and other vulnerable people. I would find it difficult to support a measure which thinks that Parliament will always provide security.
Do you remember the Second World War? For their own protection, pupils had to be taken out of areas where the bombs were dropping pretty fast, so let us learn the lessons. We may return to this proposal, but for the time being let us support what the Bill as drafted is doing.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, my noble friends have made a compelling human, practical and democratic case for the role of Parliament in expressly approving school closures in the event of a future pandemic or public health emergency. In practical terms, as we all know and have heard in this short debate, parents and teachers see every day the impacts on those young people who missed out on significant chunks of their education and their social development when schools were closed. My noble friend Lord Brady rightly pointed out the fundamental value of schools being open as unlocking all the other good things that we expect and trust them to deliver for our children.
I hope that, when the Minister comes to close, if she does not plan to accept these amendments, she gives a clear response as to how the issues that my noble friends have raised will be dealt with in future. As my noble friend Lady Spielman said, children at that point had no balancing voice to the decisions that were made, and that feels like something we do not want to have happen again.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all the contributors to this important debate. Amendment 207, which has been degrouped and stands alone for the reasons the noble Lord has outlined, would require schools to remain open to all pupils during civil emergencies unless Parliament decides otherwise. As the noble Lord stated during Committee, closing schools has significant impacts on children, as has been reinforced by the discussion here this evening. We all agree that continuity of education is vital for their learning and well-being.
We mentioned it in Committee, but I do not think it has been stressed enough in this debate that almost all schools remained open and allowed attendance in some cases to all pupils and in others to vulnerable children and to children of critical workers. I want to put on record here today our enormous thanks to the staff who worked under incredibly difficult circumstances, with changing guidance on this on a day-to-day basis, in putting the needs of those children first. There were very few total closures, and where they happened, they were usually short-term and for operational reasons. I am sure noble Lords will remember the coverage about deep-cleaning and all the other issues that came up on a daily basis.
We know now that children generally were not at risk from Covid-19 in terms of health. That does not mean that the staff were not, but children were not as vulnerable as was first feared. But that might not always be the case in future pandemics or other whole-system emergencies, and we need to keep that at the forefront of our minds as we discuss this important issue.
I reassure the Committee that the department is committed to learning from the Covid-19 pandemic inquiry. We learned from the last pandemic that planning is at its best when it is agile, takes a whole-system approach and is responsive to the situation. The department is continuing to build its capabilities to support education in all circumstances, including strengthening remote education.
Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for her serious response. She alluded correctly to the role of many different bodies, were these difficult circumstances to happen again. However, if I am not mistaken, the one body she did not mention in her response was Parliament. Does she not accept, as is fundamental to Amendment 207, that in these circumstances a decision to close schools is so important that it should have explicit parliamentary approval within a reasonable time?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I apologise, but my assumption was that all the departments working together would keep Parliament informed of the decision. However, I do not think we can pre-empt at this time how quickly decisions will need to be made. We just need to make sure that we do not create serious disadvantage by putting in legislation something that might undermine our ability to respond at pace and appropriately in circumstances that we perhaps cannot envisage now. With that, I hope that the noble Lord feels reassured enough to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response, and I thank my noble friends Lord Brady and Lady Spielman for cosponsoring this amendment. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for her excellent contribution.
I will make just one point in response to some of the points raised. It is important to learn one lesson from our response to the pandemic. That lesson is that we are pretty poor at learning lessons from previous pandemics. We had a pandemic preparedness strategy, and we prided ourselves on being better prepared for a pandemic than almost every other country. That pandemic preparedness strategy was based on the findings of public inquiries into previous pandemics and epidemics, and it was junked within two weeks in the febrile, panicky atmosphere and the heat of politics. The compelling desire to be seen to be doing something overrode the lessons we had supposedly learned from previous pandemics and epidemics. Sweden, on the other hand, which broadly speaking followed our pandemic preparedness strategy, did far better.
I am a little reassured by the words of the Minister about responding in a more intelligent, systematic, thoughtful way next time, but once the conclusions of the Covid-19 inquiry have been published, the Government need to give some thought to how those will be conveyed and how they will be meaningfully observed by a future Government, in the absence of legislating and giving Parliament the kind of role it should have before critical decisions affecting the most vulnerable people in our society are made. With that, I will of course withdraw my amendment.