Lords Chamber

Thursday 3rd July 2025

(began 7 hours, 14 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:07
11:07
11:07
11:08
11:09
11:09
11:10
11:10
11:10
11:11
11:12
11:13
11:14
11:14
11:15
11:16
11:17
11:17
11:17
11:18
11:18
11:18
11:19
11:20
11:20
11:20
11:21
11:22
11:23
11:23
11:24
11:24
11:25
11:25
11:26
11:26
11:27
11:27
11:28
11:28
11:29
11:29
11:30
11:31
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
Of course I will always agree to meet with noble Lords and of course I will meet my noble friend to discuss this particular point that he raises. And also discussed how we might take forward the proposal he has made with respect to the European leadership Forum. Of course we will do that. Can I just add that I think the important point as well is the fact that I think the UK government in establishing a new security and defence arrangement with the EU in the troubled times in which we face in your and beyond, I think is a real step forward for this country, complementing work we this country, complementing work we Is it essential that UK and European countries collaborate to partner countries collaborate to partner drawn search on collaboration? Thus avoiding anyway so duplication of avoiding anyway so duplication of Is bedevilled European search procurement in recent years.

procurement in recent years. That is a good point. Drones have been one of the lessons we have all learned with respect to the conflict in Ukraine, whether they be surveillance drones, one way drones, or whether they be any other sort of attack drawn, so tantrums are the weapon of the future, the resource of the future, international collaboration with respect to that will be vital. Anyone who visits the defence conference will seek a whole range of drones that are laid out. In terms of coalition there is a coalition that we lead with respect to Latvia to streamline the drawn procurement with respect to what we give to Ukraine, so that is the starting point, drones are simply going to be something we are all going to take account of as the battlefield of the future becomes clearer.
11:32
11:33
11:34
11:34
11:35
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:39
11:40
None Portrait Oral questions: Monitor and control of hate speech at music festivals
-

Authority and. standing in my name on the Order Paper.
11:40
11:41
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:48
11:49
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:52
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
spokesman said it was a shambolic process and he was obviously correct, although he clearly had not consulted his colleagues in this chamber who voted for its 24-hour earlier. Government is about choices. Particular so when there are limited resources, although it seems Labour backbenchers have not realise that yet. An Government must allocate those limited resources to their most pressing priorities. We know that this £30 billion Chagos giveaway is being partly funded by the noble Ladies overseas development budget, although she had so far on a number of occasions refuse to tell us exactly how much.

Can the noble Lady tell the House how she came to the view that funding tax cuts former oceans were a greater priority then forming other ODA programs that provide for example, life-saving vaccinations to children? -- For orations.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Back to the charming Norcal how we use that know and love. The cost we use that know and love. The cost of this will be around 100 Crysencio. That is about running the NHS for five hours, the cost of the NHS for five hours, the cost of the Queen Elizabeth... I am hesitate to decide which kind of vessel that is must not going to say exactly what it is. -- £100 million a year. This is excellent value, securing the is excellent value, securing the space, it secures our ability to space, it secures our ability to share a base with the United States, it is integral, it is fundamental to our security in this country.

It enables us to fight terrorism and to enables us to fight terrorism and to keep us safe. This is nothing to do with the ODA budget, as I think he well knows. And I will leave the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats to deal with his other sort of... to deal with his other sort of... Whatever view they have got going on about process.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have in my hand a BBC News report of a Jeremy Corbyn welcoming the decision by the Government on
11:54
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
the decision by the Government on the exercise of sovereignty of the Chagos islands. But we see reports that Jeremy Corbyn was very pleased the UK government had backed down. Jeremy Corbyn said the Foreign Secretary's announcement was a good step forward. That BBC News reports from 3 November, 2022. And Jeremy Corbyn was welcoming Liz Truss's government announcement in Parliament, that the negotiations were open on the seeding of sovereignty. What has happened since then? Because one would think that any agreement between Jeremy Corbyn and Liz Truss is one that we would not follow.

However, what followed after that was a shambolic process. Whether Chagossian community were denied their rights under the Conservative government and were not consulted sufficiently by the Labour government. There has been insufficient information about the trust fund because the money was not going to be provided by the previous government and there is a lack of details on this government. There is no view between myself and my colleagues because the position is perfectly apparent. When this House had an opportunity to secure a concession from the government, to have more information about the funding, to include the Chagossian community in a much better way because they have been let down by the previous government, this government then we took this opportunity to try and end the shambles.

So can I ask this Minister when will we see the statement that the Minister promised me on Monday? the Minister promised me on Monday? the Minister promised me on Monday?
11:55
11:56
11:57
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:01
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:03
12:04
None Portrait Lord Speaker
-

Thank you. Education is frequently described as a great leveller. A powerful force to close the gap between opportunity and background. Between privilege and disadvantage. And as someone that screens that divide, I can say that unless we tackle entrenched inequalities that quietly shape a child's journey before they even enter the classroom that idea will remain stubbornly out of reach. That is why I rise today to speak on two amendments to the bill before us in the children's Bill that we are debating foster amendments that might seem modest in terms of admin, but which carries immense significance for families across the country.

These amendments 195 and 201 have been tabled alongside the Right Reverend Pollitt in the Bishop of Manchester focused on the subject that is too often overlooked in our education debate. The affordability of school uniforms. Specifically statutory monetary And the cost of branded school uniforms, items, and extension of VAT and zero rating to all compulsory school uniform items for pupils up to the age of 16. These are not abstract proposals, they are informed by data from the Child poverty action group.

In 2024, approximately four. In 2024, approximately 44.5 million children lived in poverty. 2.9 million living in deep poverty. Meaning that the mean income was 50% below the median income, but also by personal experiences and by listening closely to families, teachers, welfare advisers, who witnessed this strain first hand. I grew up in inner-city Sheffield in the 80s, a working- class child in a household that often struggled to meet ends and my father, like many, worked in his local steel industry and when he lost that job we lost that financial security and I know intimately what it feels like to rely upon free it feels like to rely upon free school, and benefits from school clothing grants, not as a charity, but as a lifeline.

The grants that were provided by Sheffield City Council at the time under the leadership of the Noble Lord movement that I could walk to school on my first day wearing a jacket that fit. Choose that actually also fit and a jumper that did not single me out. It gave me more than glory, it gave me confidence, and that, in turn, allowed me to focus on learning rather than surviving. It is not lived experience that brings me to this bill with urgency and conviction.

Let me turn first to the case of branded uniforms. In 2024, the average cost of compulsory secondary school uniforms stood at just over £92 per. That figure was already burdensome on many families, often disguised in more troubling realities, sometimes the punitive cost of school items and in recent years we have seen the probability of branded and school specific clothing, jumpers, custom trousers, embroidered polo shirts, even branded socks. One school in West Yorkshire required 10 different branded items, none of which were purchased in supermarkets or high street stores.

These requirements are no longer about school identity but they have become a barrier to participation. It is clear that the consequences in 2023 research showed that 18% of families borrowed money to pay for uniforms. 10% missed out on rent payments and 27% struggled on rent payments and 27% struggled to cover energy costs. Also, their child could comply with the school dress code. This is not a matter of inconvenience, it is about access, as one 40-year-old said. You need it for everyday and it costs a lot of money and there are some people who do not go to school because of the uniform.

It ruins your education. Despite existing Department of education guidance that encourage schools to limit branded items, compliance remains inconsistent. 70% of secondary schools still require five or more branded items. That tells us that the voluntary guidance has reached a limit. What is needed now is a legislative floor, something firm, fair, and enforceable. That is why I propose a statutory monetary, tailored by education and reviewed annually to ensure that no child is excluded or penalised simply because their family cannot afford a preference of uniform.

Schools will still set their uniform policy, but they will do so within a reasonable defined cost ceiling. In doing so, we also encourage schools to adopt a more affordable and flexible approach such as allowing iron on logos or sewn on patches for supermarket bought garments and improve access to second-hand uniform schemes. Let me turn to the issues which are even me turn to the issues which are even more egregious. Under current UK VAT laws, a school uniform item for a child over 14 or a child taller than 1.2 m tax at the standard rate of 20%, this includes blazers, trousers shirts, and even footwear.

Despite these items being compulsory, and often identical in the form to those worn by younger pupils. Let me give your Lordships and example. A school blazer, size 36, it just might be VAT free. At the same blazer slice 38 is acquired by a taller pupil, often due to simply gross, is taxed. This means that the families that are more likely to face additional costs during adolescence are hit hardest. It is the system that penalises children growing and families for their teenagers.

You would not dream of taxing GCSE textbooks, so why do we tax clothing required to sit in the same classroom? According to the school where Association, parents in England are paying close to £9 million annually for VAT on school specific uniforms. That is equivalent to around £2604 per year in secondary schools. Yeah per secondary school. Money that could be far better spent on food, housing, and transport. Removing VAT on all compulsory school uniform items up to the age 16 is a clean and easily implemented solution and reflects the reality of school attendance being mandatory under 16 and that school uniforms are not an option accessory but they are required.

Let me emphasise this is not about undermining school identity, it is about I support the principle of a smart cohesive uniform, but smartness means affordability and identity should not mean exclusion. In Parliament if they adopt these two amendments, capping school uniform costs and removing VAT, we could go further. We could reinstate that modern Sheffield school clothing grant scheme from the 1980s for school clothing support for families, for example on free school or Universal Credit where the digital vouchers, local authority grants is about designing that school families face because the cost of not acting as
12:14
12:14
12:14
12:14
12:14
Lord Hampton Portrait Lord Hampton (Crossbench)
-
-
Amendment proposed clause 29 page 49 leave outlines nine to 16 and insert the words as printed on the insert the words as printed on the Marshall list. I rise to speak to my amendments 196 and 197 as I am a teacher of the state Academy. Before I talk to these amendments, can out rather cheekily add a little think that the Minister very kindly committed to keeping children and education in good time for the inset days in August, is there any progress on the recent news in the framework that has been delayed that is only going to be published this month? There's a lot of concern about this uncertainty and I wonder if the Minister could write to me about that.

Back to the amendments all the amendments in this group are pretty much the same theme, minus some amendments to raise a number of branded items in the school uniform. The manifesto pledge is a really laudable attempt by the Government to do something about poverty and helping with the cost of living crisis. But actually I think it is a bit of a red herring. Children have to workloads to go to school. School suppliers seem to become these Dickensian villains by calling the school where Association and data gathering 448 schools representing 520,000 students.

Shows the average cost of compulsory branded items and sportswear remains affordable at £92 £92.45 in 2025. And the average I suspect most schools are like our school, where a full second-hand uniform, indistinguishable from new, can be bought for £50 or under.... Of the high performing Mikheil academy school reports that their school uniform cost £76 and a second handful uniform costs about £20. -- Second-hand school uniform. this stuff last. School uniform policy is properly established are important.

They promote a sense of being and pride, as the noble Lord Mohammed of Tinsley so ably described. They also allow children to subtly rebel. Having an untucked shirt, been told to tuck it in, honour is satisfied before other things get rebelled before other things get rebelled against. I have noticed there is a growth in badges being worn in schools. Success in subjects. That are worn on the blazer. This does not work on a tracksuit top or a sweatshirt.

A blazer allows children, and especially girls, to change shape and notice. And I have talked to people in your Lordships' House but -- about a 14-year-old girl titled who was pregnant and you never would have known. -- 14-year- old girl I taught. The choice of Brown, if you give people a choice of brand you get the have-nots and the haves and it becomes obvious. And please, do not get me started on Premiership shirts. What is an away shirt? Other amendments in this group talk about the cost of an item, rather than the amount.

Either way there is going to be a cost of sending a child to school. There will always be these costs. These amendments are an attempt to help keep the cost as low as possible, while avoiding some of the more hyperbolic rhetoric that has sometimes accompanied the subject.
12:18
Baroness Sater Portrait Baroness Sater (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 1997A in my name and it was previously brought forward by my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who regrettably cannot be here today, despite his enthusiasm for the subject. I will keep my comments short as much has been said already on the subject. This probing amendment goes further than my noble friend Baroness Barran Commons amendment 199. Out of concern the government's proposal could lead to some schools excluding PE kit as a branded item altogether.

This could this incentivise schools and pupils from meeting the Prime Minister's commitment made with the Lionesses, that every child across the country should benefit and have equal access to high-quality PE and sport. A survey by the school where Association, carried out among school leaders, found that 50% of schools... Over 50% of schools indicated that they would remove Petr Cech from the uniform policy if a strict cap was imposed. -- Remove PE kits. Risking reduced sports participation due to pressure to wear the latest brands, as mentioned by the noble Lord Hampton, particularly among teenage girls stop and worryingly, they believe that the Bill as drafted would lead to increased PE costs, as mentioned, and risk to sports participation in our schools.

We know why PE is important. Why PE uniform is important. PE uniforms promote a more equitable environment for students, promoting inclusive and importantly removes the pressure to wear the trendy kit and usually more expensive kit. It creates a level playing field. It promotes safety, quality and a sense of unity among students. And it enhances school spirit. School needs to foster a sense of community and belonging. Of course I support the ambition of keeping the cost of school uniforms down but not at the expense of reducing the participation in school at, and physical activity in our schools.

At a time when we are seeing increased obesity figures in children and concerns about their lifestyle and their well-being, we should not be putting in place barriers to reduce them getting active. In fact, we need to be doing more to support and encourage activity. Above all, accepting this amendment would raise the profile of PE in schools and the importance of a healthy lifestyle for all our children.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of the noble Lord Hampton Commons amendment, 196. -- Lord Commons amendment, 196. -- Lord Hampton is amendment. It may surprise some colleagues on the Frontbench, it surprises me. I will speak on personal recently lived speak on personal recently lived experience. I have a son who is in year nine at an academy in London. year nine at an academy in London. He moved at Easter break from one school to another academy. So, we have had have a complete change of have had have a complete change of uniform in that period.

It was interesting to compare the two schools. Because one required schools. Because one required considerably more in terms of badged uniform than the other. The school uniform than the other. The school that he did attend needed a jersey, blazer, tie, TUPE shirts, TUPE shorts -- two PE shirt, two PE shorts -- two PE shirt, two PE shorts... A rugby show, a football ship. The school he moved to require just a jersey, blazer, tie, one PE shirt, one PE short, a rugby shirt and a purple shirt.

It seems to me that although I do I set the point the noble Baroness just made in Lord Moynihan's amendment, about encouraging young people to be as encouraging young people to be as active as they can in sport and in school many often leads to being active in clubs and societies, that is self evident. I do not think the fact that what they were has a school badge on it makes any particular difference. So I am not in favour of sports gear being a necessity for that badge.

If you think about it, if boys and girls represent their school playing against another school, they clearly have to have a jersey has got the school badge on it, with proper
12:24
Lord Watson of Invergowrie Portrait Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)
-
-
school colours. But if you're just playing say, as I did at school, rugby and football, there was a blue rugby and football, there was a blue top and a white top and they were interchangeable, whatever team you were in that we, preparing to matches at the weekend, you war and matches at the weekend, you war and then you got the school top the match on a Saturday. Unless rapidly match on a Saturday. Unless rapidly -- you war. Unless you are representing the school, I do not representing the school, I do not think that is necessary and I don't think it will descend his people get involved in sport, PE is compulsory involved in sport, PE is compulsory anyway.

And it is the job PE teachers and parents to encourage children to be active. I do not children to be active. I do not think wearing her top with a regular school badge and really makes much difference. I have to take issue difference. I have to take issue with one point the noble Hampton me, I apologise, I wrote it down as he said it. He said I think a blazer said it. He said I think a blazer can last the whole of the child's career.

I take it he is not including primary and secondary. Even at secondary, that is five Even at secondary, that is five years, between year seven and year 11. Can I just say, what it is 11. Can I just say, what it is worth, his son turned 14 last month and is 5 inches taller than he was at this time last year. So it would at this time last year. So it would not go anywhere near meeting his needs stop not that it is impossible that it would be pretty unusual for a child not to put on much height or girth between joining school and leaving it.

I think most children will require probably three places through five years. And that brings me to the other point about places. Iron not convinced at the point that buying a blazer from a market and then to go badge on it is of any great benefit to tackling the problem of less well-off parents facing the burden of the costs of spending a child or in most cases children to school. These blazes are not such good quality. It is well- known that blazers from a supermarket will not be the same quality as those purchased in bulk by some supplier for a school, who therefore can tell them at a reasonable price and because they are bought in bulk.

I just checked up on that in relation to my own son. A laser we had to buy for him to months ago cost £34. Like a blazer. We look on Amazon for the alternative without a badge and it was £31. So very little difference in that. And I think the quality you get in terms of having to replace the uniform is important. I very much support what the government is trying to do here. And I actually think five items as well as a tie is perfectly reasonable.

And I think it should be given further consideration by my noble friends, my noble colleagues in government. The last point I want to make is that in terms of... I'm very much committed to wearing school uniform, I think in other countries, and we see as we are at the moment, seeing many children from other countries in and around Parliament on school visits not wearing school uniform, in their country, in many countries school uniform is unknown. I think that is unfortunate.

Because there is undoubtably the issue appear pressure, which is not dealt with incidentally by some uniform school system. Because in many cases a child wearing a recycled uniform will probably have it pointed out to them by not to well-meaning friends. And if you don't wear uniform, then the sort of peer pressure that the noble Lord Mohammed said, is very much there. That is why uniform is so important. So I think uniform uniform, as opposed to... Uniform, I think is something that is worth having and retaining in terms of a schools identity, while at the same time not, I don't think, being over demanding on parents.

As I said, I speak from that recent experience, which to some extent surprised me. I thought all schools more or less at the same requirements, they do not. But I do think that just three items as well as a tight risks getting into a situation where parents will be buying things that are not exactly the same colour or exactly the same style as the boy or girl sitting next to their child in class. And for that reason I think the noble Lord Hampton Commons amendment 196 is worthy of support.

-- Lord Hampton's's amendment. The other one is about amendment 102, that is on school uniform sports and an idea that I think is open to exacerbating the problems of peer pressure, rather than overcoming them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare my interest as a member of the knowledge schools trust. Before I speak about my amendment I Before I speak about my amendment I would just like to offer my support to all those uniform amendments that to all those uniform amendments that are proposed so far by noble Lord. I do think schools need a bit more flexibility when it comes to flexibility when it comes to uniforms that is allowed for by the Bill as drafted. My amendment, much
12:28
Lord Young of Acton Portrait Lord Young of Acton (Conservative)
-
-
Bill as drafted. My amendment, much like amendments 195A and 199ZA, with caveat and the ban on schools being allowed to mandate three items of a branded uniform to exclude branded items that have been provided or lent to pupils free of charge. Why? Well one reason, as we have just heard from my noble friends Baroness Hayter, is because some schools have sports kit sponsors who provide more than three branded items free of charge. But I think the more important reason is that this prohibition would throw up an obstacle to the expansion of the combined Cadet.

In state schools. -- Cadet force program. Which the Government has said it is in favour. My reading of this particular clause is that prohibition would apply to CCF troops, because it says, "For the purposes of subsection 1, which is a limit on the number of items or people is required to have, "A pupil is required to have a branded item of school uniform in any year they are required to have it to participate in any lesson, club, activity or event facilitated by the school during the year." And a school-based...

Sorry, a school- based cadet force would be an activity facilitated by the school. I was surprised to see this clause appear as written. Because an article in the UK defence journal, published on 29th of May, 2025, began, "The Ministry of Defence has welcomed the findings of a recent academic study highlighting the positive impact of school based cadet forces and confirm plans to expand combined cadet forces in state schools as part of a broader effort to improve youth development and opportunity." And when responding to a parliamentary question from Lord Stevens of Birmingham, on 28th of May, shortly after this report was published, the Minister of State for defence, Lord Coaker, a firm government support for the report's recommendation that school-based cadet forces the expanded.

"We very much welcome excellent research by the University of Northampton on impact and value of school-based cadet forces in the UK stop a study commissioned by the Ministry of Defence." Said Lord Coaker. He went on to describe the report as compelling reading anyone interested in the development of young people, noting it contained many useful insights for school leaders to help support their efforts to seek wider opportunities for all their pupils. If the government is genuinely in favour of expanding the CCF program, and I hope it is, it must accept my amendment, since the uniforms members of CCF Hathaway contain more than three branded items.

-- Have to wear. With exception of the combat boots, all items are provided free of charge by the Ministry of Defence, meaning if you caveat) to nine in the way I am suggesting, it nine in the way I am suggesting, it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Have to say his father, the author of the 1935 Labour manifesto author of the 1935 Labour manifesto rather than his own, but something else, but the point he is making else, but the point he is making about forces I think is an interesting one. I mentioned my son earlier, and I think they should have combined forces available. There would be something that was There would be something that was our girls can opt into and only in a situation where the school made it mandatory that all children joined mandatory that all children joined in with the issues of advancing weight.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

weight. The clause, as I read it, does

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The clause, as I read it, does not just limit the prohibition to items mandated by the school for every pupil, but if those items are every pupil, but if those items are mandatory for an activity mandatory for an activity facilitated by the school but we believe this prohibition would still apply that to my reading of the clause perhaps the Noble Lady the Minister will correct me on that Minister will correct me on that before she responds.

But just to sum up, I welcome the government's intention which is to avoid schools placing excessive financial burdens on low income families, but making an exception on being led to pupils would not impose any additional burdens, so I cannot see how they would possibly oppose this or other similar amendments to achieve the same purpose.
12:33
Baroness Parminter Portrait Baroness Parminter (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I rise to speak to these two amendments and this follows on on amendments and this follows on on the theme of a complementary manner propose to excellency because it addresses the cost issues by asking for mandated second-hand schools and I am sure that Minister will see there is already statutory guidance for schools to provide details of school uniforms, but her own department did a survey in 2023 and found that parents I think it was 65% of parents were the ones that could say those actually did provide second-hand sales, so that is a significant increase, and it has been estimated there are over 1.4 million quality items of school uniform which are lost every air which is a loss to parents the same as with this money and, indeed, a cost to all of us when local authorities have two deal with the disposal of this uniform and the cost to the environment of dealing with plastic and the carbon that comes from the disposing of those garments.

So, what I would call for in this amendment is for the mandated leave of schools to provide second-hand uniforms. If the Minister is not able to agree to that at the end of her remarks I hope she might think about without in refresh of upcoming stability and climate change strategy and the prohibition of uniforms with that sustainability and climate change strategy, but clearly looking at the issues of the affordability and sustainability could be a win-win both for parents and for the environment.

And amendment to O2 N deals with the slightly different health impacts of clothing on young people and the inclusion on much of the clothing that young people are wearing and they cover this of course because they do not breakdown the environment and there is emerging evidence now of significant negative health impacts in terms of cancer, fertility, and, crucially, in terms of neurodevelopment. And these people say are, mainly, picked up people through the scheme, so this is a really important issue, and people say around it by that manufacturers in the policy but don't these stay in resistant surfaces last.

Maximum 10 to 20 times they would be kept on an item of clothing before they are washed away, so there was a limited benefit for long-term potential health impacts to our young people, and it is for this reason that both farmers and Denmark have gotten rid of this in clothing, and so might amendment would insist that the Government remove or stop allowing the PFS is to be used in store closing because of the impact of the welfare of our children.

children.
12:37
Baroness Boycott Portrait Baroness Boycott (Crossbench)
-
-
I had put my name to the amendment to O2 in the name of the Baroness Bennett. I think that this is a fantastically important amendment, and I would be very distressed if the Government does not seize the moment as the knowledge comes into view of these kinds of chemicals in cheap clothes, basically, and is putting to our children's systems. Jeremy Grantham who many people may not as being one of the main funders of climate changes across the world over the last 40 years is indeed one of the funders behind the external report who I met with about three weeks ago.

He is no longer funding climate change but it is a more or less foregone conclusion that things are going well. He has turned his entire industry hind looking at P fast enough just our clothing but in our soils and going into specifically clothing you start looking around the world, American Airlines recently sued because they produce these very cheap uniforms for stewardesses and started to develop incredible ranges of different skin illnesses as well as internal illnesses, as the Noble Lady Baroness Parminter fund research and Denmark showing that prenatal contact to cheaply made fabrics with P FAS in them has led to reductions in IQ among children, France is banning all school uniforms containing P FAS from next year and a big company that works and looks at the environmental impact of chemicals and one of the reasons why people want these chemicals in clothing is because they say that it is very easy to wash, dry is almost immediately and you never need to ion it, but they discovered that people treat these clothes in exactly the same way, but every time you wash if it is not just when you are putting it in to your skin, every time you wash it from the washing machine they are now in the circulation, they are in breastmilk, they are in placenta, they are in our plants looking at 25% reduction in fertility within the next 10 years.

Some of the work that they are doing is looking at male fertility which some people say has got it many people in the world but this is not the way we want to do it by crashing male fertility and all sorts of things, so these are the dangers. I worked with ultra- processed food like everyone knows but one of the interesting things about these chemicals is that a single one of them or once they are under order may not themselves be dangerous but you mix them up, that is the whole point of chemistry, that is why we went into chemistry with the GCSE and had fun making things explode.

There change and going into these fabrics they can be manufactured at immense volume and cheapness and it is not just the school uniforms, it is the stuff kids are buying when they can combine 20 garments through a company like Shine, these are dangerous. We can stop this. Yes, I completely support all of the amendments because they are fair and I want them to be cheap but I do not want them to be dangerous to our children. And please can you start doing something about it? Europe is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ahead of us and other countries are ahead of us. We can do this. The Noble Lady Parmenter and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Noble Lady Parmenter and I think the Noble Lady boycott just made an extremely powerful case for made an extremely powerful case for 202 a to which I catch my name. In the interest of time, I will mainly the interest of time, I will mainly focus on the two amendments that appear in my name in this group, which is to O2 Bay and 484. So,
12:41
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
which is to O2 Bay and 484. So, starting with two O2 B which is, essentially, an expansion of the amendments the Noble Lady Baroness Boycott, focusing on the health impacts of P FAS, I am focusing on the broader issues of the health of school uniforms and this is an amendment that seeks to allow the Secretary of State to regulate school uniforms given that human and environmental health risks they represent. This is not written in the amendment because it is written broadly to house the review in again, but statement is I particularly talking about artificial fibres which includes P FAS but also most broader than that.

And this is a narrower version that I put to the meteorology bill that was debated in December last, and I had a great deal of evidence that I have not got time to include today, but I said then these products, chemicals, plastics and other substances are accumulating in our bodies day by day. And that picks up a point made by the Noble Lady baroness boycott, we have a cocktail effect of bodies being bombarded from our clothing from our environment, from our food.

And we are talking about young people who are going to live decades and decades. Accumulating more and more p fast, including more and more fast plastics in their body and I think it is important that we talk about school uniforms, forcing pupils to wear them. This is the state mandating people to wear clothing which is highly likely to be doing them harm. Our children. And we think about how it is going to go from the clothing into people's bodies. The blazer, pupils are running for the schoolbus or running around in the playground.

Smaller children but they touch their clothing and then they put their hand in their mouth, or they touch something else, they're going to be ingesting whatever is in their clothing. And just to pick up it literally is weak by week now we are getting more reports, research reports on the impacts, but just this week they have found micro plastic particles in human semen and female reproductive fluids. And there is great concern about the potential impacts on the fertility.

There are micro plastics in samples of human penises, and this may play a role in erectile dysfunction. Just a study this morning from the Netherlands in everything a person in the Netherlands and there is no reason to think we are any different has multiple types of p fast in their blood. And virtually all of them are above healthy limits. Now, we do not know what the actual, we do not have detailed explanations of exactly what impact this will have or what this has put we apply the precautionary principle to the environment.

Surely we should be implying or employing the cautionary principle to the health of our young people. And the clothing that we are putting them in. And as has already been referred to, France is moving on a ban on most p fast imports and Manufacturer and by 2030 will have banned all p fast treated textiles. I note, interestingly, in the debate on the product regulation bill, the Noble Lord shop of Epsom, not I think currently in place, got quite concerned about what made his shirt non-Iona and I had to go away and look that up and it is formaldehyde.

And Europe has stepped up with strong relations now on formaldehyde exposure in products than we do. The National Trust in 2019 recognised the artificial fibre fleeces it was supplying to its staff and putting in its shops. It is estimated that every time they washed they sent 1.7 g of microfibres, but also they were concerned about when they walk through the natural environment, they are shedding plastics they are shedding plastics everywhere. So, this is, of course, an environmental health issue as well as a human health issue, but I think in the context of this bill the human health issue for children and young people is overwhelming.

So, I come now to my second amendment in this group which is shifting topic slightly, and this is amendment for 84. And this is school her requirements, pupils must not be denied opportunities to take part in classes or any other school activities by reason of their hair cut or style, unless for reasons of The origins of this go to a couple of events I've been with the World of events I've been with the World Afro They -- Day campaign group.

There is a background to this. Of course race is a protected quality under the 2010 equality act and that has been taken to include Afro hair and cornrows, Platz and her and cornrows, Platz and her coverings. -- plaits. Yet there have been 50 calls about her discrimination in schools. The HRC -- EHRC successfully funded a case -- EHRC successfully funded a case in 2015. In 2022, the EHRC delivered nonstatutory guidance to schools to try to ensure they don't need her discrimination.

However, simple scan through news pages shows this continues to be a problem. The case in London were a boy was excluded from school because his hair remit because of his hair. He was threatened with expulsion. His threatened with expulsion. His father comes from Ghana. He applied for an exemption and the school refused to grant it. In 2023 come at a Catholic college in Birmingham, a child had need common uncoloured braids with a discrete heart shape in the braid.

Again, she was forced to sit at the solitary table at lunch time. Again, in another location, a child had some colour incorporated into braids. She was put into a solitary area. The EHRC has tried to tackle this. I tried to think how could I write an amendment that would do a better job than me to tackle this issue then the EHRC since they failed. It's clearly a continuing issue. Then I thought more broadly about the issue of her overall and not just children with Afro hair.

We look at cases like 10-year-old Evie who was excluded because she had her hair dyed split style. Apparently, it was offputting and disturbing to other pupils, and that's why she was not allowed to come to school with this hair colour. We go to the case of Strood Academy in Kent. A 15-year-old boy had his hair cut very short to control his eczema and also had a skin feed. He worried that school for four days, and then he was placed in the behavioural unit because of his hair cut and because because of his hair cut and because of his skin feed.

-- fade. When the hair had grown back in of, he was allowed to go back to class. Now, my Lords, we hear very often in this chamber, we've been hearing it again and again, great concern about the number of pupils who are not in school, not attending lessons, not getting the education that they actually need. And one of the things that is really striking is that in nearly all of these cases, they are in disadvantaged communities. And pupils are being sent home, being threatened with exclusion, being put into isolation because of their hair.

I believe that we have to say that we can... Teachers and pupils can cope with pupils having different coloured hair, different haircuts. If we are going to get

**** Possible New Speaker ****

serious about education for all, we should not be excluding pupils because of their hair cut our hair colour. I speak in support of my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I speak in support of my amendment to hundred, relating to amendment to hundred, relating to school uniform policy. And taking a slightly different approach. First, it is important to recognise there is a tiny minority of schools that use the cost of uniforms as an attempt to screen out children. This
12:51
Lord Agnew of Oulton Portrait Lord Agnew of Oulton (Conservative)
-
-
attempt to screen out children. This relates to perhaps 2% of the entirety of state schools. The situation, the solution proposed in this clause is so heavy-handed and bureaucratic. Is a classic example of the dead hand of the state intervening in an entirely impractical way, such as to cause more harm than good. Does Whitehall really know how many branded items as school is likely to use? Where does the magic number of three come from? For example, schools trying to encourage sport and competing with others, trying to foster an identity with branded sportswear? How the bureaucrats find out how much a branded Irene on local actually costs -- iron-on.

How can we do this? I refer to my interest as the Chairman of the Inspiration Trust. I will refer to some of the points we have made their. We will ensure that uniforms are available at an accessible because. We will do this in a careful and considering -- considerate way. We will limit items with distinct characteristics were possible. Limiting items with the distinctive characteristics to low- cost or long lasting items such as ties. Considering cheaper alternatives such as iron-on logos as long as it doesn't compromise quality or durability.

Pupils can wear -- using items that pupils can wear on nonschool days as well. Avoiding different uniform requirements for different years, classes or house groups. Avoiding different requirements for extracurricular activities. Considering alternative methods for signalling differences in groups that would instil competition. Avoiding frequent changes, uniform specifications and minimising financial impact on parents. Consulting parents and pupils are any proposed significant -- on any proposed significant changes. Carefully considering any complaints about the policy.

It's all there. I'm sure in large part just following the DfE guidance. The bit missing is the actual cost. According to the Schoolwear Association, uniform cost has fallen by 34% over the last three years. According to the House of Commons library, the cost of a secondary uniform -- second-hand uniform was uniform -- second-hand uniform was lower as well. Does this really need a central government mandate? In the last three years, my chief executive has not had a single complaint about uniform cost.

It's over 11,000 pupils in 18 schools. But let's say something has to be done, but rather than a top-down, Whitehall decked out, we are suggesting an amendment mechanism the Labour government originally conceived themselves. The externally -- extraordinary power of the structure is not well understood by many officials, and for those noble Lords not familiar with it, essentially members of an academy trust act as proxy shareholders. The members sit above the trust board and have certain enshrined rights and responsibilities.

The problem with the DfE is that officials allowed the two groups to become intermingled, thus undermining the whole point of it. It is reasonable that the Chair of the trustees is a member or indeed one or two others member or indeed one or two others are members who are not trustees. It depends on the time of the creation of the academy trust. The following key responsibilities apply to the vast majority. Appointing and removal of trustees, appointing and removing members, amending articles of association, directing trustees by special resolution, appointing auditors, and these powers ensure that members can intervene if the trust governance or performance is adequate.

Members must always act to further the academy trust charitable status. The solution would be to add a requirement for members. Members already are answerable to the DfE. Noble Lords will see it from the six key responsibilities a listed which are logical if prescribed to something like overpriced uniforms. Number for a number six are there to protect children if the trust is being badly run. Overpriced uniforms are part of bad management, it's a simple as that.

Is noble Lords will have seen from the Inspiration Trust statement on its website, it already deals with this. Adding something like members of the trust scrutinise and approve uniform policy would close the loop. It's important to mirror government policy at local level. This can be done by requiring the director of children's services to assume the same's responsibility -- the same responsibility. This would give consistency across the whole English state system. When the Prime Minister was elected last year, he said, " I want to lead a government that treads lightly in people's lives." Here we have as currently proposed a piece of primary legislation that seeks to do exactly the opposite.

Controls lives from Whitehall in a rigid, top down

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. A bid to move. I fully understand the government
12:58
12:59
Baroness Spielman Portrait Baroness Spielman (Conservative)
-
-
I'm writing to support amendments 196 to 199 and 201. And if these are not accepted, Lord Agnew 's also have merit. Every autumn, there is a rash of stories about children being sent home for not being incorrect uniform, but these disputes most often are not about and that items. They are about a child's reluctance to wear something in the style that has been approved for all pupils. It's actually encouraging to note that household expenditure on clothing and footwear as a proportion of -- as a proportion has fallen substantially over the last 50 years.

In historical terms, it's probably never been cheaper to clothes a family, relatively speaking. But I know the concerns that have been expressed about cheap synthetic fabrics and finishes. Reassuringly, clothing is also not an area where poor families are spending a high proportion of their incomes. According to the latest ONS data, 3% of household income nationally is spent on clothing and footwear and for the poorest fifth the proportion is only marginally higher at 3.1%. I also believe that most schools are in fact acutely aware of which families are in real need and have arrangements to make sure that uniform that is no longer needed or outgrown can be passed on a second hand or free to those who need it.

The universal constraint that proposed will be a significant constraint on overloaded head teachers and it's a new burden that does carry some risks because head teachers still have the job of creating a shared ethos, a positive culture and good behaviour in their schools. And they will be more limited in the ways they can do that. And I would echo Lord Hampton plasma comments on the practicalities on the three item These provisions do nothing to help heads of the kind of issues creating problems for schools as they do need reinforcement for a, our schools are required to accommodate children wearing the uniform of the other sex, some schools are sidestepping this with a unisex uniform, but not every girl wants to be put into a unisex uniform which, of course, typically ends up as what would previously have been characterised as a boys uniform.

And to take another, our schools are required to set uniform policies with clothing that may be considered a matter of cultural preference rather than religious belief. I have come under attack in the past for defending a schools right not to include hijab is in its uniform policy 45-six- year-olds, who are clearly well -- For five and six-year-oldss, who are clearly under the age of puberty. There is a wide range of views on the subject within the Muslim community, not everyone feels equally able to express them publicly.

Schools need to know that government stands behind them on the difficult choices. That they must make. These are things that a man who really wants to know schools work better could be addressing, as well as cost. So, I support the simple and practical amendments proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Hampton, Young, and Lord Mohammed, and Baroness Barran, this would contribute to a certified workable regime that recognises the value of school uniform and incentivises schools to make the effort to provide new or second-hand branded items are free or at minimal cost for those who need them.

And I would add that the noble Lord Mohammed's comments, to the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed's comments on school uniforms, it does seem to cut directly across these provisions. Foreclosing sized for most teenagers, the only items of uniform that have unequivocally zero rated are those that are clearly branded with the colours or logo of a specific school. So, there is a risk that items that were formerly zero rated would now have to be standard rated, which means parents paying not less, but more.

I'm sure ministers wouldn't want a provision intended to save parents money, ending up costing some parents more for stuff that really would be an own goal. --. That really would be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

an own goal. I think there are two things we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think there are two things we can all in this chamber agree on. They are that school uniforms are They are that school uniforms are important. In that they bring I important. In that they bring I think a phrase that was used by Lord Mohammed was the give confidence for Mohammed was the give confidence for learning. And I think they give a sense of identity to those young
13:04
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
sense of identity to those young people. I think that was the first thing we could all agree on. The second thing we can all agree on is that we have to ensure school uniforms are affordable and that parents of children from poorer families do not feel disconnected against. -- Discriminated against. I want to give you two practical... I should perhaps declare an interest as the governor of the Kings Academy, Waiver Tree. My two practical examples are when I was a Deputy Head Teacher, the school governors did not believe in school uniform.

And I have to say, that was not a particularly good decision, because of course, those young people from well-off families who wear the latest trainers, show off the latest T-shirt, the designer gear, et cetera. My second example is my own daughter. She went to King David secondary school and had a very simple uniform of a sweatshirt, polo shirt and grey skirt. I knew head came along that was anxious to make the school stand out. And the make the school stand out.

And the uniform changed to be a kilt, blue blouse, a pullover, a V-neck pullover, with the school colourings in the V-neck. A blazer with a badge, and a tie. And the cost just went through the roof. So, that was clearly stupid. I actually think that if you want to deal with this issue, the current proposals from the government are Rab8 a dogs dinner -- Are a bit of a dog's dinner, or an S -- MS might be a better turn of phrase.

What about the poor old bookbag? The infant carrying their little, in my school, green nylon £3.20 bookbag which meant so much for those children, it encouraged them to value books, encouraged them to read, that is included as one of the branded items. That will presumably go, and hence, primary heads, infant heads, will have to decide whether the bookbag is going on the altar of correctness, in terms of uniform. The second concern that I have is I just don't think this is workable.

Because if a school decides it wants to have other branded items, it can write to parents and say this is the law of the land, but if you want to have additional branded items, it's up to you. As the Minister going to enforce parents that say, no, you cannot have this additional item? Of course they are not. Then we look at sport, sport has been mentioned. And you see teams playing in perhaps the dominant school colour. Let's say for example it is red.

So, they will play their football, rugby, hockey, lacrosse matches, whatever it is, wearing red. What happens if they turn up for a match both schools having the same colour? Red? What happens then? Oh, we have to notify beforehand what colour we are going to wear, it is nonsensical. And if you want private school, you want pride in sport as well, so I just do not get that happening at all. If you really want to deal with this issue, there are two things that should happen.

Lord Mohammed, where he talked about the Sheffield situation, I have to tell you, I think it was the Macmillan or the Wilson government brought in school uniform grants, and every local authority could provide money for families from para-circumstances. It wasn't just Sheffield, it was Liverpool, Birmingham, you name it, it happened. The points he makes are right, it is not about limiting the number of items, it's about getting the costs correct. They would reduce VAT on clothing that they might look Was acceptable.

Lord Agnew was right when he talked about the magic three, you can imagine, can't you? The government saying, you know, we want to do something about this, how can we do this, the sort of civil servants and government getting together to say, yeah, we don't want to go back to grants, because the budget is going to go through the roof, and we want to keep VAT. Once we go down that route, there will be requests for other items to be excluded. I have got an idea, why don't we limit the number of items that can be branded? Well, that's not the way it works.

It will just not happen in the future. It is like when there was talk in at the Tony Blair government about school assemblies and the government of the day came forward and said every school has to have a collective and active worship every day, and it has to be mainly Christian. You go into schools today and that does not happen, because it was totally unworkable. It was totally unworkable, because people come from different circumstances, different faiths. I am giving the example, minister, that legislation has to work.

An collective worship did not work in schools. That is the point I am trying to make. This is carried, if this is carried, this will just not happen. If you want to make a saving for children and families, you will support Lord Mohammed's amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendments one and 5A, B, 198, 199 in my name, and 1998ZA, which I co- signed with my noble friend, signed with my noble friend, Baroness Hayter. And of course, we all recognise that the government committed in its manifesto to bring
13:11
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
committed in its manifesto to bring down the cost of school uniform by limiting the number of branded items of uniform, and PE kit that schools require, and I just wonder whether now those who wrote the manifesto, having listened to this debate might be wishing they phrased that slightly differently, and it just stopped at bringing down the cost of We seek to find ways to give schools more discretion and flexibility in the uniform they require people to wear, particularly regarding branded items, while meeting government schools of keeping costs as low as possible.

And as we have heard, amendments to hundred and two costs as low as possible. And as we have heard, amendments to hundred and 2A, heard, amendments to hundred and 2A, and B, SQL -- 202, A and B, we have heard about community and safety when children travel to and from school, the fact that it actually saves parents money, encourages participation in sport. And the new one from my list which appeals to me a lot, it's the subtle rebellion point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton.

The government's approach raises a number of questions, particularly given the recent private members bill or now act, which was passed under the last government and sponsored in this House by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of who is not in her place today. And as Lord Agnew said, it states schools should keep branded items to a minimum, making sure second-hand uniform is available, as well as avoiding using items that are only available from a single supplier.

And the guidance is very clear, and I quote, " Parents should not have to think about the cost of not have to think about the cost of the school uniform and thinking about which school to apply for, therefore schools need to assure the uniforms are affordable." And I think the real merit of the current guidance as it talks about the cost of the total uniform and not just the branded item, because of course, that is what parents pay for. And as we have heard, the real cost of branded items has fallen significantly in real terms, in recent years.

Furthermore, this definition of school uniform in this bill is very broad. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, made the case for the nylon schoolbag. I have several for my children in cupboards. At home. Fondly full of school reports. But also, any clothing required for extracurricular activity, including items without a logo but where an item is " Only available from a particular store and has a distinctive characteristic, such as colour, design or fabric." And we know from the answer to a written question that based on the 2023 Cost of Uniform Survey for Parents, we estimate that one third of primary schools and seven in 10 secondary schools will have to remove compulsory branded items from the uniforms, in order to comply with the proposed legislation.

So, the impact of the government's changes will be felt far and wide, but not peers in terms of reduced cost parents, which is of course rightly the government's objective. And I just think it's hard given all the recent legislation and guidance, that this is the best use of time for school leaders, governors, and trustees. Amendment 200 in a name of my noble friend, Lord Agnew, would achieve two goals. Firstly, like that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, it approaches the issue from a perspective of cost, rather than being prescriptive about the number of branded items a school is allowed to require its pupils to wear.

And secondly, it addresses the issue of responsibility for the cost of school uniform at exit absolutely clear -- And makes it absolutely clear they should rest with the members of an academy trust Adler Gravity for maintaining school, rather than the Secretary of State. Cost is at the heart of the issue. But so also is the need to keep responsibly these clear, and delegated to the responsible bodies, rather than centralised. It is slightly extraordinary to think the Secretary of State has any time to worry about book bags and ties, but anyway.

That is why, although I agree with the principle behind amendment 195, I believe my noble friend's amendment is stronger as it captures both these points. But if the noble Baroness of the Minister doesn't agree to accept amendments to hundred, -- Amendment 200, she has a range of options to choose from, with the government ambition to address affordability of school uniform is met, but also workable, a point very powerfully made by Lord The noble Lord Hampton's amendments introduced a more generous limit in terms of the number of items, reflecting the practical realities of schools, and the importance of avoiding children ending up with a more expensive school wardrobe, with peer pressure to have designer jackets and so forth.

Or she could accept amendment 197A in the name of Lord Acton. I hope she will address his very important point about CCF. I have to say, having re-read the bill while I listened to my friend, I agree with his interpretation. Or she could accept my amendment which would allow a school to exceed the specified limit in terms of the number of items if the parent did not have to pay for them. So why would the government what -- want to deny schools this flexibility to provide an item of uniform to all pupils if it is available to them? My amendment 198 aims to give the government an option to include paid for new or second-hand items were these offered at a lower cost than buying nonbranded items.

This I think aligns directly with the government's aims. More broadly, we support amendment 200 in the name of Lady Parminter although my understanding is that the current guidance already stresses the importance of having a good second hand uniform for. I put my name to hand uniform for. I put my name to both my amendment 199 and amendment 199ZA in the name of my noble friend Baroness Hayter. 199 is obviously a narrower version in that it excludes from the three item cap any items, PE kit, that are needed if the child is representing the school in a competition.

199ZA Would exclude all PE kit. I'm not sure how the government except expects competitions to look without branded items, if only for the benefit of the referee and spectators. I know that some schools handout school kid four matches. Currently, even if children are given these items, it would not comply with the proposed legislation. Both amendments 202A and 202B seek to address the environmental and health and safety impacts of school uniforms, and I think some of the points the noble ladies and the noble Baroness Lady Boycott made about the boys -- risks associated with PFAS are very concerning.

I would also like to thank my noble friend Barry Spelman for raising some of the real issues schools are worrying about -- Baroness Spelman. I'd like to hear the Minister's reflections on these. Returning to the issue of cost of uniform, it's clear that... An cost has been the single issue with widespread agreement across the house. The single most expensive items of school clothing are not uniform but the fashion brands that children will urge their parents to buy for them.

And I hope very much that the Noble Baronesses the Minister takes these amendments in the constructive spirit in which they are tabled. they are tabled.
13:21
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Rising to speak to amendments in group 1, just to be clear, I believe that uniforms have an important role to play in our schools, for many of the reasons outlined. This government is committed to cutting the cost of school uniforms for families. This is why we have chosen to support families while limiting in this bill the numbers of branded items that schools can require pupils to have. This will enable parents to buy more items from a range of retailers, including high street retailers, allowing them the flexibility to make spending decisions that suit their circumstances.

Turning to amendment 195 in the name of the noble Lord Lord Mohammed. We do want to ensure that any action we take provides schools and parents with clarity and offers parents a choice in how to manage the cost of school uniform. Ensuring parents can I items -- can Ensuring parents can I items -- can buy more items from retailers offers that capability. Cost cap would mean that schools have to review uniform policies annually, as the noble Lord said, to ensure they remained within the cap.

It could mean schools changing their uniforms more frequently, increasing therefore overall cost, and restricting choice for parents. A cost cap would be complex for schools and administrators -- suppliers to administer. There would also be overreliance on specific suppliers. Our solution allows parents to take advantage of a wide range of suppliers and accessible cross. We recognise that parents are struggling with the cost of uniform. That's why we are running forward these provisions and we recognise that in England some local authorities to provide discretionary grants to help with buying school uniforms in cases of financial hardship.

We are facing difficult choices about how we best support families. And the noble Lord Lord Storey in a rather dismissive comment about government officials, which has been a bit of a theme, a regrettable theme, I think, this afternoon, suggested that a national grant... Suggested it is somewhat unreasonable of the government to bring forward these proposals. Grand targeted at those most in need -- a grand targeted at those most in need would be helpful in this environment.

This government has chosen to reduce the cost of uniforms. Turning to amendments in the name of Baroness Barran, as previously mentioned, it is a key priority for these provisions that we provide clarity on what the measure means for parents. These amendments proposed by the noble Lady could create confusion for parents about whether a given branded item of uniform would be captured within the statutory limit, depending on how it was acquired. There is also a risk that schools may subsequently attempt to charge parents for expensive replacement if branded items are lost or damaged.

Furthermore, allowing schools to set out different uniform policies depending on the school's ability to provide or source items for free could also risk increasing inequalities between schools and pupils. Turning to amendments 196 and 197 in the name of Lord Hampton, which seek to increase the number of items that secondary and middle schools can require from three to five. We believe we provide the best balance between reducing the cost for parents and ensuring that schools, parents and pupils can continue to experience the benefits that allowing a small number of branded items can bring.

All whilst ensuring flexibility needed to set uniform policies that work for schools. Increasing these limits would in fact significantly limit the impact of this measure, depriving many parents of the opportunity to enjoy greater choice in where to buy their child's uniform or the flexibility to make spending decisions that suit their circumstances. Turning to amendment 197A in the name of Lord Young, my first point here is that the amendment is written, as opposed to some of the points the Lord made, which I will come to, is that this amendment is unnecessary as it doesn't restrict the ability of schools to offer branded items for sale, or to provide or alone out branded uniform items such as competition kit, as long as these items are optional.

I do think this is an important point because there has been some suggestion that it wouldn't be possible for schools to offer branded items or to loan out and it items. It would be but they would have to be optional. If wearing the item is optional for participation in the activity, then it is not counted in the limit of branded items. We also don't want to place an undue burden on schools by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

suggesting... I'm sorry, may be the noble Lady is about to come to this. I think is about to come to this. I think what my noble friend was saying that -- is that in the CCF, you have to -- is that in the CCF, you have to wear the CCF uniform. Similarly, if you are presenting the school in a competition, it's not really

**** Possible New Speaker ****

optional, but maybe she is about to clarify. On the sports competition, I think it is possible to envisage that the school would provide a set of branded uniform for the school of branded uniform for the school sports team, whilst not suggesting sports team, whilst not suggesting that it was compulsory to wear them. Of course, I can understand all the Of course, I can understand all the arguments you might want to have a clear identity for the school whilst clear identity for the school whilst doing sports, and on the point of cadets, which I was coming to...

I cadets, which I was coming to... I will make more one point before I come to cadets. There is a challenge but we don't want to place undue burden on schools by suggesting they should routinely be supplying additional expensive branded items to their pupils at no cost. I think to their pupils at no cost. I think the point about cadets is an important one and we don't intend the legislation to prevent cadets and we will consider how to make this clear .You as the legislation does not do that but we understand the point being made and we will ensure this is made clear because of the benefits of students being able to take part in cadets in the way that the noble Lord outline.

Turning to amendment 198...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just to be really clear on this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just to be really clear on this. What I heard the noble Lady say is that in the case of cadets where it that in the case of cadets where it is required to wear uniform and it is given for free, the government will clarify that that is will clarify that that is acceptable. But she also said she doesn't want to place undue burdens doesn't want to place undue burdens on schools. Understandably. But in a sports competition, it's going to be optional for pupils whether or not they were the kit that is provided they were the kit that is provided for free.

That feels unworkable and very inconsistent.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very inconsistent. What I said was that this measure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What I said was that this measure doesn't prevent schools providing or loaning out branded uniform items loaning out branded uniform items such as competition kit, but if that were to be absolutely compulsory, were to be absolutely compulsory, then that, of course, would need to then that, of course, would need to be included in the three branded be included in the three branded items. As long as those items are optional. I don't think it is too difficult to envisage that schools

**** Possible New Speaker ****

difficult to envisage that schools may be able to make that work. If there -- if the shirt provided by the school is blue and the opposition are rent, and some of the pupils decide to be difficult and turn up in red, and create chaos, that that is OK, but otherwise it is breaking the rules? Doesn't sound very practical. I would ask the noble Lady if she could take her time with some people who run schools and officials to see if we can work our way through this in a practical way, well at the same time trying to make sure all children are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

treated equally and we limit the costs as much as we can. I'm certainly willing to continue thinking about the issue of school sports because it is very much not sports because it is very much not the intention of the government either to prevent the loaning of branded items for school sports. In the example that the noble Lord the example that the noble Lord mentioned, in my day when I played mentioned, in my day when I played hockey, if we ended up playing against a school with a similar against a school with a similar coloured kit, we wore bits in order to distinguish ourselves.

I don't think it's impossible to overcome think it's impossible to overcome think it's impossible to overcome But the important point is? No, let's come back to it, and I take let's come back to it, and I take the point noble Lords have made the point noble Lords have made here. Turning to amendment 198 in the name of the noble Lady, Baroness the name of the noble Lady, Baroness Barran, which seeks to allow schools to require more than three branded uniform items, where the school provides additional items that can provides additional items that can be purchased for significantly less than generic alternatives or for second-hand items, a less than buying a new branded item.

My view is, our view is, this amendment is also necessary. Just to reiterate, nothing in this bill will prevent those schools capable of providing branded items for less cost than generic alternatives, from offering them, but as an optional item for stopped turning to amendment 199 and 199 ZA which also relate to items related to the kit. Amendment 199 would mean the schools can require those pupils who wish to represent school and sporting activities to have a potentially unlimited number of branded items, whereas amendment 199 ZA means the school could require anyone speak it to be a potentially unlimited number of branded items, I think where we are all agreed he was the cost of sports kit should never be a barrier to representing school or participation in sport, and I do think it is right for schools asking for large numbers of branded items are required to reduce them.

Turning to amendment 200 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew. As has been identified, the department's existing statutory guidance already require that when developing the uniform policy, schools should prioritise and engage with parents, pupils and cost issues, should be able to show how parents views are being taken into account. It also requires that schools publish details of the uniform policy on their website. However, while some schools are taking action to reduce the cost of school uniform, too many families tell us that the cost of school uniform remains a financial burden.

That is why, according to the children's Society survey, 78% of parents believe they should be a specific limit on the number of branded uniform items. And that is why this measure is needed. Turning to amendment 201 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed. One of the issue of removing VAT. It is the case that under current VAT rules, or children's clothing and footwear designed for children who are less than 14 years of age, including school uniforms, already attract a zero rate of VAT.

Indeed, the UK is one of only two, among the 37 OECD member countries, to maintain VAT relief for children's clothing, which costs the Exchequer £2 billion per year. I know the Liberal Democrats today are feeling flush and calling for further expenditure, but I have to say, going further on the current VAT provisions would come at a cost to the Exchequer and I'm not convinced that this would be the best use of public money. Therefore, we have no current plans to go further on this issue at this point.

Turning to amendment 202 in the name of the noble Lady, Baroness Parminter, on the issue of requiring schools to provide access to second-hand uniform. I very strongly agree that access to second-hand uniforms is extremely important for parents, but I do think this parents, but I do think this amendment is unnecessary. Our existing statutory guidance as she already identified it as required schools to ensure arrangements are in place for parents to acquire second-hand school uniforms. It is for the school to decide how this will best be achieved.

For examples, through periodic second-hand uniform sales, or swap shops. This gives schools the flexibility to keep their existing second-hand arrangements, or set of new arrangements that work best for their circumstances. And turning to amendments 200 and 2K and 200 and 2B seeking to ban the use of P FAS in school uniform and the noble Lady Baroness Bennett's amendment on regulating school uniforms that pose a human and environmental health risk. Of course, we want our children's clothing to be as safe and sustainable as possible, we want all clothing to fulfil those requirements.

That is why we are working across government to help assess levels of PFAS occurring in the environment, there are sources and potential risks, in order to inform policy and regulatory approaches and includes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consideration... Working across government, what is actually happening? Is there something specific about uniforms?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

something specific about uniforms? Is it just PFAS? Can we get some details so is that our concern can keep an eye on it. It does include, think the point

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It does include, think the point I was making as it does relate to all clothes, and is considering the risks from PFAS used in textiles, but I will be happy to provide further information about how that further information about how that work is being carried out. And in the interim, our statutory guidance the interim, our statutory guidance is already clear that it is important schools consider sustainability and ethical supply chains, as well as engaging with parents and pupils, when tendering parents and pupils, when tendering for uniform contracts.

And I know many High Street retailers already many High Street retailers already offer school uniforms without PFAS treatments, for many of the reasons that noble Lords have outlined today. Furthermore, you have brick today. Furthermore, you have brick safety -- Product safety laws require manufacturers ensure the require manufacturers ensure the safety of products before they are placed on the market, we also have placed on the market, we also have robust systems in place to identify the impact of chemicals under the UK regulation evaluation authorisation restrictions of chemicals.

UK reach. Add to regulate them effectively. Turning to amendment 484, tabled by the noble Lady, Baroness Bennett. Discrimination has no place in our schools, or in fact, in society. Our guidance is clear that in setting uniform and appearance policies, including on hair, we expect schools to meet their existing obligations under equalities law, not to discriminate unlawfully. Guidance also already exists for schools and preventing hair discrimination, published by the Equality And Human Rights Commission, the noble Lady had a lengthy list of cases.

I have to say, I don't know the details of all of those, but I would just comment that I think it's reasonable for schools to develop and implemented behaviour policies to uphold school rules and to use sanctions that have a and proportionate and that could well also relate to uniform unexpected appearance within schools.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lady for giving way. What the noble Lady care to address my point about the fact that we have great concern about pupils we have great concern about pupils not in school, yet we are excluding them for this reason. This is them for this reason. This is actually reducing the amount of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

education that pupils are getting. Well, I don't think the main

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I don't think the main reasons why pupils are being excluded from school is because of issues with their hair, but I do think it is right for schools to think it is right for schools to have the ability to set the criteria and the constraints within which they expect their pupils to behave. And as I say, whilst not being And as I say, whilst not being across all the individual cases that the noble Lady outline, I could imagine circumstances in which it imagine circumstances in which it would be justifiable to take action against students, who perhaps persistently failed to comply with persistently failed to comply with persistently failed to comply with the rules that had been set by a school, including about their appearance.

So, I think we have had a wide-ranging debate and I hope I a wide-ranging debate and I hope I have responded to one of the points that have been raised. And on that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

basis I wonder if she would go away and consider the fate of the branded bookbag, with primary infant schools, if it wouldn't be included as part of the three, because it is a way of encouraging reading, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

literacy, in our schools. I very much enjoyed the bookbag that my boys carried backwards and that my boys carried backwards and forwards to school but I am not sure that that trumps what the government is trying to achieve in terms of is trying to achieve in terms of trying to reduce the costs of school uniform. And of course, any school uniform. And of course, any school it felt that was absolutely crucial for them could of course include it within the three branded items that within the three branded items that are within the legislative proposals are within the legislative proposals Thank you, to the debate we just had, I think noble Lords have
13:40
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Portrait Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
had, I think noble Lords have clearly got a keen interest in school uniforms. I am going to keep my submission brief. I really do want to thank everyone, I think we are on the same page, in the sense that we want to reduce the costs of school uniforms. We have different ideas, but this is what Euro ships house is about, to come here together and improve -- Your Lordships house is about to come here and improve legislation from the other place.

I am keen that we do pursue this. I see that in the other place and the government is in the spirit of reflection, and review, of policies, and I hope that spirit wields its way down the corridor to hear, but we can also say, yes, you do have this ambition to reduce the cost but we also have different ideas that also warrant you to look at them, and they may well be ideas that might work better. And I think, my lords, but I hope the government does go away to think about it as we go towards the next stage of the spell, and I would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 195. Is at your Lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment 195, A, Baroness Barran, Amendment 195, A, Baroness Barran, not moved. 195, B, not moved. Amendment 196, Lord Hampton. Not Amendment 196, Lord Hampton. Not moved. 197, not moved? Not moved. moved. 197, not moved? Not moved. Amendment 197, A, Lord Young of Amendment 197, A, Lord Young of actin. -- Lord Young of actin. Not moved. 198 and 199, Baroness Barran.

moved. 198 and 199, Baroness Barran. moved. 198 and 199, Baroness Barran. Not moved. 199 is -- ZA, Baroness Not moved. 199 is -- ZA, Baroness Hayter, not moved. Amendment 200, The The question The question is The question is that The question is that clause The question is that clause 29 The question is that clause 29 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.

Amendment 201, Lord Mohammed, not moved. Amendment Lord Mohammed, not moved. Amendment 202, Baroness Parminter. Not moved. 202, Baroness Parminter. Not moved. 202, B, Baroness Bennett, not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Frost. My Lords, I rise to support amendments to hundred and two, C, amendments to hundred and two, C, and 207, A, standing in my name and the names of my noble friends. We are now, at last, beginning are now, at last, beginning consideration of the large number of consideration of the large number of amendments we have got on home education and this pleasure and an honour to be able to kick off what I
13:44
Lord Frost Portrait Lord Frost (Conservative)
-
-
honour to be able to kick off what I think is going to be a lengthy and important discussion. Now, the proposals on home education are an important part of this bill, and perhaps, have got less attention than other aspects of it. I guess that is because most people have been to school and not many people have got any direct experience of home education. As a result, it's a sector that does work well, but is often misunderstood. And I certainly hope that by the end of our discussions, however long they take, and our consideration of these amendments, noble Lords, especially the government, will have a clearer understanding of some of the difficulties that home educators have to deal with.

This particular group is a slightly miscellaneous heterogeneous collection of amendments, some of them in touch on grounds that we will probably consider more extensively at debate, at greater length, later. But for now, I will focus on the two amendments standing in my name, which are on a specific aspect of the general issue of home education. But a very specialised aspect, which is flexes schooling. I will make some general remarks on the broader aspects of home education, as the question of whether clause 31 stand question of whether clause 31 stand , the first important thing to understand is that flexible schooling is not education as commonly understood and as we will discuss over the next however many groups, but fixie schooling -- flexi schooling has been around for a couple of decades.

It can be granted for various reasons. The study needs of the individual child, for example, or the child's inability or ability to fit in with that particular school environment and there are many other perfectly good reasons why this happens. Perhaps that is why over 700 schools across the UK have agreed to flexi schooling arrangements. I have small experience of this myself in my own family. Indeed, some school -- some small schools at risk of closure due to small -- low pupil numbers have adopted flexi schooling.

This bill will change it possibly inadvertently and possibly not. First of all, the bill proposes that the local authority has to consent to flexible schooling arrangements It is not like elective home education. It is a discretionary arrangement. Children are under the authority of the school. There are still registered at school and still seen regularly at school. Second, the bill also says that flexible schooling pupils must also be registered with the local authority on the register that we will discuss no doubt at greater length later, and with all the bureaucracy and paperwork and process that is proposed to go with that.

That, again, seems inefficient with a duplication of administrative tasks and data processing. Flexible schools have regular reviews where families share evidence of learning at home and the school can and the arrangements at any time if they think there are safeguarding concerns or think the education is unsuitable in anyway. It is a very different sort of arrangement. There is a real risk in making flexi schooling more difficult for no good reasons. It is a hybrid model of education for children whose needs are not met in full time school and for whom full-time education is not a viable alternative for whatever reason.

It may also be a way to help some children to continue to access a school-based education. Otherwise, they might feel forced to choose home education against their preference. My amendments would deal with these difficulties. They would make clear that the children not at school register did not apply to children who are in flexi schooling because their education is managed by the school. The school's consent is needed and that consent can be maintained or withdrawn at any time.

Flexible schooling is something different, it is similar to home education but it's not the same thing. I do hope that the Minister will look at this question, where ever the debate on home education goes more broadly, and consider whether some flexibility and adjustment can be made. Now, very briefly, the question of whether clause 31 stand past this bill is within this group and within the name of my noble friend, Lord Lucas. Ensure he and other Lords will speak Ensure he and other Lords will speak to that.

We are dealing with this slightly out of sequence but close 31 is such a fundamental part of the discussion that I do want to say a word about it now. I have doubts about close 31 and indeed much of clause30-35. Its unspoken background belief which I suspect is widely shared is that there is no aspects of life in this country which can't in principle be regulated and improved by state action. The truth is, of course, parents who choose home education can get things wrong.

But the state can also get things from. And the many groups which we will discuss -- the many amendments which were going to discuss, we need to ensure we are not comparing the real world version of home education were much is done very well but some is not, to a fantasy version of state education where everything works perfectly well. Need to ensure we don't take ideas which are damaging. We need to make sure we are realistic about the state, not think it only acts from pure motives, never harasses, never punishes, never acts inappropriately.

The evidence is that home education is generally done well. As I've noted before in 2023, only one .4% of children educated at home got a school attendance order, yet 10% of schools in the UK were inadequate or required improvement. So, what system is actually feeling her? Some home education won't be perfect. Some people will educate their I I do I do think I do think the I do think the register I do think the register is I do think the register is going I do think the register is going to have downsides in terms of privacy, in terms of diversion of effort.

Is going to intimidate some parents and put them off home education altogether. Finally, it will begin to change the philosophy that guides home education. The current philosophy is that parents have -- have the responsibility for their children's education. There are starting to tell parents that the state knows best. That's why I personally am nervous not just about close 31 but many of these proposals. We are seeing the erosion of the freedom and autonomy principle.

I'm sure we will come back to all of these issues but meanwhile, in the time being, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, close 30, page 50, line 32. Leave out open could withdraw the child from could withdraw the child from school" And insert " Remove the child's name". The question is that child's name". The question is that this amendment be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this amendment be agreed to. I acknowledge it is unusual to raise at this point in the debate and I recognise that there are lots and I recognise that there are lots of detailed groups that we have of detailed groups that we have ahead of us considering the issues in these clauses. I thought it might be helpful and important to set out
13:55
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
be helpful and important to set out the intention behind the children not in school measures before we get into further detail on the technical elements. Firstly, as well, I would like to pay tribute to those noble members of this House who have previously supported legislative measures introducing registers of children not in school. Noble Lady Baroness Barran who did excellent work in this space as part of her role in government. The noble Lord Lord Storey who has tirelessly worked to support and craft legislation.

Lord Soley to who is now retired from this house, who did a tremendous amount of work and campaigning for these registers. I'd also like to thank the engagement to date by noble members of this house, including the noble Lords Lord Lucas who met with officials, the noble Lord Lord Wei and Lord Hacking. Engagement from all sides of the house has been welcomed and instructed. I do recognise at the detail questions that noble Lords have, which are reflected in the many groups that we have ahead of us.

On that basis, I just wanted to be clear that I think it is important this engagement continues in terms of looking at the details of how this important measure is implemented. We do also continue to engage with the home educating community. The previous government held a consultation on children not in school registers in 2019, which received around 5000 responses, mainly from parents. We have built on this engagement and have an ongoing implementation forum, made up of home educators and other stakeholders, as well as other engagement opportunities with officials and ministers.

We will also consult on the regulations and statutory guidance required for implementation of the measures, which will provide further opportunity for engagement. This engagement will continue following the end of this committee stage. the end of this committee stage. Input from noble Lords as well as local authorities, home educators and others will be invaluable as we move towards the drafting of regulations and statutory guidance required for the successful implementation of the measures. But onto the purpose behind the Children Not in School Measures.

I'm sure others will agree that every child has the right to save education. This is the underpinning sensible of these measures. The legal responsibility for child's education breast with their parents. This bill does not change that. Some parents choose to fulfil the responsibility by exercising their right to educate their child at home. We recognise this right and we know that many home educated parents -- home educating parents work hard to ensure their child receives an often excellent education. Unfortunately, this is not the case for all children.

Where children are missing out on education, it is essential they can be identified quickly and supported. Local authorities have an existing legal duty to make arrangements to identify children not in school in their areas, who are not receiving a suitable education. This is undermined by the lack of obligation on parents to notify the local authority that they are home educating. England and Wales are outliers amongst Western nations in this respect. We are in a small minority where there is no requirement for parents to inform authorities that they are home educated -- home educating.

The noble Lord Lord Frost, and I feel there might be a theme among noble Lords about this, beliefs or fears that what is being proposed in this legislation is in overstretching of the intrusion of the state into the issues of home education. I would simply identify to him, as I have suggested that in actual fact, England and Wales have a very light, and arguably to light at the moment, regulation of home education. Even if all the provisions in this bill come to fruition, it will still be the case that we have a very light legislative approach here, because we do recognise the right of parents to be able to choose to home educate.

But we also recognise that this current system makes it too easy for children to school to fall through the gaps. The Department, the government, all of us cannot ignore the rising numbers of children not in school. Our latest data shows that there are 111,000 111,700 children known to be home educated as of October 2024 and 39,200 children known to be missing education. And effective system of registration for children not in school is therefore long overdue. Parties across the political spectrum have attempted to introduce one.

Parents also recognise that registers are commonsense. A recent poll commissioned by my department shows that three quarters of parents surveyed believed that parents should be required to register the home educated children with local We believe we can deliver on this, and ensuring it works for parents and children. Some critics of the register say local authorities are already aware of children who are not receiving the same suitable education. It is the case that authorities are aware of some of these children, but when the children are identified, local authorities too often find their ability to support a child frustrated by the inefficiencies in the current system and that is why the bill also seeks to make the school attendance order process more efficient.

Where it appears a child is not receiving a suitable education, or that regular attendance in school will be in the best interest of the child, subject to child protection processes, it is essential that local authorities act quickly. They must initiate the school attendance order process, which can lead to a child being required to attend a named school. This process we feel is also proportionate consequence, should parents not provide the required information for inclusion on local authority registers. I want to make clear that the process is not intended to penalised parents, to provide the child with a roof to a suitable -- With a route to a suitable education where necessary.

We have measures we will discuss in the next grouping, focusing on the most vulnerable children and those with the highest needs. The children subject to child protection inquiries or are registered at a special school, parents will be required to seek consent from the local authority before being able to remove the child from role to help educate. This is to provide a necessary check to ensure home education received is going to be safe and suitable. For these children who are most likely to be vulnerable or have additional needs.

Finally, my lords, we have a lot to debate on these measures and I look forward to that debate. I hope that given the amount that we have to cover, we could try to focus on being succinct, but please rest assure that noble Lords will still receive a full answer, either in my responses or in the engagement that I have already identified that will be very content to involve noble Lords in between now and the next stages of the consideration of this bill.

And I hope that would also mean that some noble Lords might feel able to withdraw some of the very detailed and narrow amendments, should they feel their point has should they feel their point has
14:03
Lord Meston Portrait Lord Meston (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I wish to speak to amendment 226 in my name. I emphasise that it differs from others in the group, which are more concerned with children not attending school, because they are not registered at any school. And the amendments we have been discussing so far more concerned with home education in various forms. My amendment concerns those who are on a school role, but not attending, and it focuses on the responsibilities of local authorities in such situations.

I apologise, therefore, if my amendment seems to be somewhat on a limb, but I think it is quite an important dilemma. There is no doubt that the government are working hard to address the problem of what has been described as an epidemic of school absences. It is well understood that some absences are disadvantaged children educationally and socially under private of the value of education and offer opportunities both in the short and long term. I will not attempt any analysis of the many explanations for failure to attend school, but they clearly do include poverty, mental health problems, and of course, the pandemic, which is thought to have led some parents to see daily school attendance is optional.

In this context, the fundamental duties of those are those of parents to ensure their children of compulsory school age are receiving suitable full-time education. And those of the schools to record and monitor attendance and to inform local authorities of failures to attend regularly. In August last year, there was an important revised statutory guidance on children missing education. That statutory guidance states schools should monitor attendance closely and address poor or irregular attendance, and that it is reported to local authority.

The guidance is also clear that the duties of schools and local authorities are to be viewed alongside the wider duties and local initiatives to promote the safeguarding of children. In October last year, the government announced increased investment in attendance monitoring. And in October, the noble Baroness, the Minister, in answer to a question here by Lord Young, expressed her determination to bring absenteeism figures down. And she also referred to the work already done by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran.

Between the guidance issued in August, and what the Minister said in October, the children's Commissioner published in September 2024 a powerful and wide- ranging report entitled Children Missing Education: The Untold Story, this provided analysis of the procedures followed by local authorities, to support children missing education, and analysis of the characteristics and histories of children known or suspected to be missing education. Who are amongst the most vulnerable in society and in need of support. This report found that there significant inconsistencies between local authorities and use of the term children missing education, which can lead to children falling through the gaps.

But few local authorities take proactive steps to prevent children from going missing from education, and there is little one- to-one support available for children missing education, to reintegrate into school. The report referred to a lack of shared national definition and a differing interpretation of children missing education. Attic also resources of local authorities to trace and support children missing or at risk of missing the education. The Minister had increased worry about thousands of children being denied their right to education, having fallen off the radar of the local authorities.

She said in too many instances, no one knows where these children are. Or if they are safe. She described a shocking lack of urgency, in trying to trace these children. My amendment seeks to address, in terms of statutory duties, some of the main inefficiencies and inconsistencies defined by the commission, and to underpin what in legislation is or ought to be required by existing guidance on regulations. Absenteeism requires a fast and sometimes robust response. Good practice should not be piecemeal.

The amendment seeks to provide for such a response with consistent arrangements for local authorities to be promptly informed of the non-attendance or irregular attendance. A duty to take urgent steps to trace any child known or believed to be missing school without authorisation or satisfactory explanation. And a duty to provide appropriate support, are soon a child has been traced. -- As soon as the child has been traced I hope the Minister can take the opportunity to face the government's response on those recommendations, and to indicate what is already being done to ensure compliance with the latest guidance.

The other trigger for this amendment is my experiences of cases in the family court, when the court is provided, sometimes as an afterthought, with the school attendance records of the child or children concerned in those proceedings. These can show how unexplained or unsatisfactorily explained absences can be a marker of significant neglect and mistreatment which may have been unknown or not visible to other agencies. On occasions with provision of those records, the court is left wondering why nothing or nothing more was done to follow- up the absences much nearer the time.

On other occasions, the court itself can be left to ask for unprovided information about school attendance. That explains the last subparagraph of the proposed amendments. All in all, I would seek that the government confirmed that there would be a consistent approach, better communication, and better and faster response to absences.
14:10
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
I think that is a very important amendment from the noble Lord and reminds us that in this part of the bill, we are not just dealing with parents who choose to educate their children at home, but also, some very substantial problems that state education has in not keeping hold of and looking after children who are nominally registered at school. I will come onto the question of unregistered alternative education, to which the state commits many children, in a later amendment.

So, this is about looking after the children, and I think the noble Lord has put his finger very much and what we ought to be doing. If there is a whole structure being built here, to get better information on home educated children, what is the point of it, if we are not already using the information we have on children who are registered. Is there actually a responsive system that all of this extra information is going to be fed into.

Are we actually focusing on the children that need our help? Or are we just making life more difficult for a lot of very responsible and successful parents. My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the government's approach to elective home education. I felt there was a good deal in common in our approaches. And I very much hope to be able to build on that as we look at these amendments. I will very much endeavour to not take up the time of the House if I can avoid it.

In that context, picking up on her very kind offer of conversations with officials, might it not help if those conversations could take place those conversations could take place between today and 1 September. Because that would mean that I wouldn't have to take up the time in committee. We could have short- circuited it before then. I am in the UK all August, but perhaps that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

might not use her officials. I will clarify for the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord, that is what I had in mind. I remain unclear, if I might

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I remain unclear, if I might address the general issues first, I remain unclear about many aspects of remain unclear about many aspects of the government's policy. And I was unaware of conversations with the unaware of conversations with the implementation forum. If the noble Baroness is able to share on it, so I can understand what has been going I can understand what has been going on, that would be very helpful. My understanding is that following the understanding is that following the provisions of this bill, all children will have the educational route that they are following clearly recorded on one register of clearly recorded on one register of another by the local authority.

So, this isn't something aimed at this isn't something aimed at elective education, it is aimed at looking after children. I would be very grateful if the Minister could confirm that, that we are not left with invisible groups of children, with invisible groups of children, somewhere in the system. My view of home education, although I didn't try it, I threatened my daughter with several educations, but never tried it, is it is a fundamentally positive thing. One substantial route of home education, although about 60%, I reckon, of home educators are those who found their child experience of state school to be sufficiently bad, or the child's needs to be sufficiently non- standard, that they have taken on the challenge of educating them at home.

In doing this, they are doing the nation a most substantial service, they are free and the school concerned a pupil, who they have clearly had difficulty coming to terms with, they contributed their own time and effort, and they are costing the state much less then it costs to keep the child in school. Particularly if that child has special educational needs, which many of these children do. To my mind, these parents deserve our wholehearted approbation and support and I very much hope the Minister agrees with that.

Another group are those that wish to educate their children in a different way than that on offer in our schools. To my mind, fundamental British values should guide us to respect and should guide us to respect and tolerate such difference is between traditionally have. I agree with the Minister that we have a right to ask that these children emerge from their education, fit for the world, prepared to make the best of themselves and are safe. In our legislation, this is summarised as suitable education and a surety of well-being, which can be summarised as being seen.

A particular case in point here is in the community, their children undergo elective home education, plus for the boys, an intense religious education. Can the Minister confirm to me that the government wholeheartedly supports the right of this community and of similar communities to bring up their children, in accordance with their beliefs? And will she further confirmed that, subject to those children being seen, and it being confirmed that their education is suitable, as the home educated children in general, there will be no government demand for their religious education to be subject to inspection or controls, as long as it is clear to all that the religious education concerned stays religious education concerned stays Home education should be supported, particularly by local authorities, because it is the best way for a local authority to get to see the children concerned in education.

This works well with home education and there are a good number of them. The local authority is involved in making sure that there are activities and opportunities available to home educated children, which mean -- means that those children get seen in an organised way by properly trained professionals who are capable of making an assessment of their general level of education. As someone who has spent a large chunk of their life going around schools, yes, if you want to make a detailed assessment, you have to get up close, but you can see if something is going wrong.

As long as the child is being seen and is having educational contact with a professional, then that the child, if they are faced with a professional from a local authority, can be fruit -- can be put in the " can be fruit -- can be put in the " That's all right" Pile. There will always be some children in home education who should not be there, who have been tipped out into home education by their schools, parents.

We absolutely need mechanisms which enable us to focus on those children. Adding burdens to the great majority of home educators who do do it well is not the best way of achieving that aim. It merely diverts a lot of effort. So looking at the particular provisions of the bill, why is it proposed that permission should be required to remove special education needs child remove special education needs child from school? We all know what state special needs processes are at the moment.

Long queues for tribunal, real difficulty in finding the right placements, a general adversarial mindset due to a shortage of money. What is the actual basis for thinking that putting local authorities in this position of authority over children will actually work? That they have the time and expertise to make this judgement better than parents can make? If we are going to do this, it's my firm belief that we have to offer parents in this circumstance access to a tribunal so that they can have a fair way of agreeing or disagreeing with local authorities -- a fair way of disagreeing with local authorities.

I very much hope the government will support that. The government's proposals for data collection are really onerous and detailed. They are the sort of things I would really like to have time to get through with officials. A lot of my amendments are trying to get into the details of what's going on there. The two amendments I have in this group for very much into that category. Questions I would that category. Questions I would like answers to that I'm quite prepared by way of a brief answer now and a long discussion afterwards.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is my first occasion to speak in this debate on the eighth day and as I said at second reading, I have concentrated and will I have concentrated and will continue to concentrate on the issues relating to homeschooling issues relating to homeschooling parents and our pupils. It was parents and our pupils. It was heartening to hear from Lord Lucas his strong endorsement of home his strong endorsement of home education. It was also very helpful of my noble friend the Minister to of my noble friend the Minister to intervene when she did.

It gives me the opportunity of my short speech that... The noble Baroness May remember, when she was in the Department of education, I did bring Department of education, I did bring to her homeschooling mother's, and to her homeschooling mother's, and the issue that I have on behalf of the homeschooling mothers is not an the homeschooling mothers is not an issue of whether there should be a register or not. The ample reasons that my noble friend the Minister gave in her speech just now, I entirely endorse, and yes, there should be a register.

But the problem is, and these are the words are used in Second Reading, the trouble is the provisions relating
14:23
Lord Hacking Portrait Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
-
to homeschooling are in this bill to homeschooling are in this bill are too long and too complicated. We have certain difficulties in the have certain difficulties in the conduct of this debate. First of, conduct of this debate. First of, there are several amendments which are not on the issue of are not on the issue of homeschooling. Some were also not in homeschooling. Some were also not in the order of the bill. We've already jumped into close 31. The first jumped into close 31.

The first clause in the bill on homeschooling clause in the bill on homeschooling is clause 30. There are altogether four clauses relating to four clauses relating to homeschooling in this bill. Clauses homeschooling in this bill. Clauses 30, 31, 32 and 33. It would be much more convenient if they were taken in order. I think the best thing I in order. I think the best thing I can do at this stage, being the first occasion that are spoken in this bill, I shall address your Lordships on homeschooling and the homeschoolers, and their parents.

Altogether, there are roughly 1% of children eligible for state school education. Rather, putting it this way, all children eligible for state education, the homeschooling on the accounts for 1%. -- Out of all children. In state schools, there are over 9 million children. That makes the total of homeschooling parents to be in the region of 90,000 or 91,000. Of substantial Many of the homeschooling mothers are university educated. They group together and what they call cooperatives.

So the number of children being educated often goes around the figure of seven to eight pupils in a grouping. On specialist subjects, the homeschooling mothers can gather together 20-30 pupils at the same time. Homeschooling parents the same time. Homeschooling parents have an average three educational visits. Homeschooling allows also, and this is another feature of homeschooling, it allows the teaching of subject which are not available in the system, for example classics, as well as schooling in music and drama, which are not always available in state schools.

There was a good example given to the Minister when I was able to meet him with Stephen Morgan, with some homeschooling mothers, and one of them was an Oxford regiment and she wanted to include classics. -- One of them had reached out to an Oxford graduate because she wanted to Sometimes, child must be taken out of the state school system for unhappiness or other. I think you can all understand that homeschooling is a big, big commitment.

Lord Lucas recognise that. Homeschooling mothers are very busy in their prime role of education of their children. Therefore, to involve them in extensive bureaucracy, as proposed in this bill, is wrong, and that is what I am opposing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If I might just interject here. One of the things about home education is that the child should education is that the child should come first. We've got a situation where education should allow you to function as an adult independently afterwards. If we don't lose sight afterwards. If we don't lose sight of that, we stand a chance of getting some commonsense emerging
14:27
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
from this. Also, is one of these things... When somebody mentioned special educational needs, I don't know if it is me rising like a tried to fly or a bull at a red flag, but I will always look at this and the first people who are dealing with home education were because of special educational needs not being met. Now, the system is probably better than it was when we started out but we know there are great many problems within it.

If you don't, for instance, have teachers in a school or you can't find the right school or one that you think is acceptable, certainly a home education might become more attractive. Don't forget you still have to have the parent being well enough trained to actually deliver that education. It's not going to be an easy option and the fact of the matter is that some parents might think they are well enough trained and get it wrong. I don't think there's anybody here who works in education who has any lack of people...

Dyslexia is one example. I can picture any -- I can imagine teaching anyone to read. The last time somebody said that to me, I said " Inconsequential". It was about the politest way I could tell them. Expletives were coming to mind. There are schemes like this going through. I hope we can get somebody, something here that says the education is the most important factor. Because it is what happens to that child and the rights of the child that must come first.

If we are delivering it, fine, but the state has a duty to make sure that person can function independently or as independently as possible after their education as an adult in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

real world. I hope we never lose sight of that. At this stage, at the beginning

**** Possible New Speaker ****

At this stage, at the beginning of this stretching ahead, many, many amendments on homeschooling, I'd amendments on homeschooling, I'd like to thank the noble Lady the Minister for her opening remarks. They were very helpful and I won't They were very helpful and I won't be speaking on all the amendments I put my name to, even though I think the result of scrutiny required so
14:30
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
the result of scrutiny required so we can make sure we get this right. I do want to raise my blood concerns that she can maybe come back on, why I think it is needed -- brought I think it is needed -- brought concerns. -- broad. I think in that context, the proposed provisions to regulate homeschooling do seem to be predicated on a change in the way the state used parents so let me just explore what that might mean.

I think the primary relationship children should have safety as were the parents not the state, and we have historically said that parents then will look to the state for schooling, but it is an option, rather than a requirement. And that I do think there is a danger in some of the debate around homeschooling, the families and parents are being undermined. Particularly, that register of children are not in school, it seems to be making parents answerable to local authorities, for the most intimate of details, can understandably seen as intrusive, disproportionate, and almost by default treats homeschoolers as a suspect category, a risky cohort.

And even though Minister's emphasis on safety today might actually give that impression. I would like for some clarification there, because I generally don't understand the catchall nature of some of the provisions in the bill. Of course it is, and it should be in the scope of authorities to have specific and special records relating to children who have good reasons to have concern around, in relation to homeschooling, as they are revelation to those escaped schooling -- As they are in relation to those in estate schooling.

But the simple fact that child has been homeschooled is seen as itself a risk, and that is where homeschoolers feel that increased state surveillance of children and their parents implies that shift in relationship. And to finish, noble Lord, Lord Frost, made some very useful reminders earlier, when he said we shouldn't presume that everything that happens in families is potentially a bit dodgy. In terms of homeschooling, and we certainly should not presume that anything that happens in terms of state schooling is in and of itself a good And I think it was useful when the noble Lord, Lord Addington, reminded us a moment ago that for many parents, that initially, homeschooling was a reaction, a response to the fact they felt that schools were not able to provide special educational provision that was needed.

We have had a situation in recent years where we have been reminded of the many children who are now not attending schools and it was something many of us warned about during lockdown, and we said that the state closure of schools across-the-board would lead to the breach of educational contract and would mean there would be problems later one of those children returning. I remember arguing, some of us did argue that, and we were treated as though the threat was that we wanted to have schools kept open.

And at that stage, the fact children will be enforced into the home didn't mean there was any concern about homeschooling in that situation. So, I think the state made some catastrophic errors during that time, and we are, at the moment, dealing with the aftermath of the grooming gangs, and I am glad the government have taken that on board, there is not going to be a national inquiry, and we read the audit and so on. And can we remind ourselves that many of those young victims were in state care homes.

Many of them went to school, and teachers, we know, knew what was going on and looked the other way. So I think it was a useful reminder that when we say we are only looking at homeschooling through the prism of safeguarding, that we have to be careful that we don't, in that way, end up smearing so many parents are either becoming complacent about the weaknesses of state provision over the years.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to the question clause 31 stand part of this bill, and in so doing, I wish to apologise to the House, for not
14:35
Baroness Humphreys Portrait Baroness Humphreys (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
having taken part in the bill in second reading. I also thank the Minister for her very clear statement at the beginning of this debate. I want to make a relatively short contribution, to highlight one of the issues the Welsh government wishes to take forward in this bill. And to acknowledge the constructive collaboration of the two governments and their offices on this and other issues on the bill. I particularly issues on the bill. I particularly want to make a few comments on children not in school registers.

Liberal Democrats have long called for such a register, including in the subject. We agree with the NSPCC and the children's Commissioner that the register can be an important tool in keeping children safe. We understand the legal responsibilities of parents have, to ensure that children receive an education. And as liberals, we believe parents have the right to choose home education where they feel this is the right choice for their child. However, we are very concerned that the whereabouts of hundreds of children in both England and Wales are simply unknown.

Education is of course devolved to Wales and was government already operates a register on its children missing education database. However, the Welsh education secretary states in the legislative competence memorandum to this bill, the children not in school provisions proposed in this bill would enhance the children missing school policy. From a safeguarding perspective. The From a safeguarding perspective. The children are not in school register school attendance order, strength and suitability assessment, and child protection clauses applying alongside the children missing education database.

I am pleased the Welsh government has recognised the provisions in this bill, as introduced, will have resulted in local authorities in England having greater levels of contact with elective home education children, the local authorities in Wales. At that if the provisions were not extended in Wales, as proposed by the tabled amendments, duties and families in Wales would be considered less stringent than those in England. I welcome the Bush government's pragmatic approach which should produce a seamless system between the two nations.

The reaction of the Welsh government in taking this opportunity to be hands child protection measures is also commended by the Children's Commissioner for Wales. He recognises the importance of addressing gaps in provision, to ensure children are not in school have all of their rights fulfilled. And it is to these rights that I would like to turn briefly. When we talk about a children not in school register, we tend to have discussions like we have had today the rights of schools and parents, but in the home letter of the education committee Chair, supporting the plc and, the children's Commissioner for Wales highlighted the three tests.

Her office has published in relation to children's rights one home education. They are, first, that all children in Wales can be accounted for. And that none are visible. And second, that every child receives suitable education, and that there are other human rights including health, care and safety, but third, every child is seen at their experiences and views are listened to, this is essential for the first test to be met. These three tests I think help us to focus our attention away from the needs and rights of parents and to consider the needs and rights of children.

The children's Commissioner for Wales points out the Welsh government makes no reference to children's rights in their LCM, and are surprised no children's rights impact assessment has been produced with the proposals. Such an impact assessment, she said, would help ensure the Bush government fulfils its own duties -- Welsh government fulfils its own duties, to ensure children's rights, provides transparency, in stakeholders, and assists in identifying and mitigating any unintended consequences. My Lords, I am sure the Welsh government will rise to the challenge and produce a children's rights impact assessment, to ensure the rights of the children of Wales.

But can I ask the noble Lady, the minister, whether the rights of children in England will be similarly address? -- Addressed? It seems to me this bill and clause 31 in particular goes a long way to assuring the rights of children are met in both England and Wales, but the government needs to make it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clear that that is its intention. My Lords, I declare my interest as a parent of home educated as a parent of home educated children. I want to also take this
14:41
Lord Wei Portrait Lord Wei (Conservative)
-
-
children. I want to also take this opportunity to echo the earlier tribute to the many home educated families who work so hard over such a long period of time to raise their children well, as the data showed us and as was mentioned. I also want to thank the Minister for her offer to meet with peers, Lord Lucas, I myself am around in August, and if officials are able to meet with us to discuss our concerns, I think I would like to be able to join in some of those discussions as well.

I rise to speak in support of a number of amendments, 202, C, 227, 227, A, and 226, which I believe interrogator sweeping new framework S saw, and they empower local authorities to demand detailed information from parents, the harm wide of education in children outside mainstream system. Let's be clear, I fully accept there are very few tragic cases where parents intend on harming or neglecting their children, citing home education as a smokescreen, but in pretty much every instance, the abuse was already present when the child was involved in school.

As indeed has just been mentioned, state-run care. To take these horrors and to use them to justify a regime that treats all parents who choose to home educate as presumptively suspect is not only disproportionate, it's profoundly unjust. It risks creating a system that soaks up scarce safeguarding resources, chasing bureaucratic compliance by good families. While truly at risk children continue to slip through the net, precisely because professionals are mired in routine paperwork. Clause 31 in particular gives local how are these extraordinary powers.

-- Local authorities extraordinary powers, and any child not attending school full-time, regardless of whether there is reason to suspect karma. The data that can be demanded in the disclose is extensive and includes personal details, philosophical convictions, protected characteristics, information on supplementary education providers, and more, held indefinitely, cross reference with other local records, I totally oppose this register on principle, as I mentioned at second reading. We can see the concern raised by the rights of children and other bodies, that the proposed children not in school register goes beyond what is necessary, and even the Department for Education itself is conceded that under existing duties, city having a child's name, date of birth remarkably having a child's name, address and home address, a parent, should be enough to have the local authority, to identify those children not in school, and ensuring they are receiving education.

Yet, they go on to say there may be other data that will be hopeful to capture. That is not how lawful data-processing works. Under well-established principles and data-processing must be limited to what is necessary, and must not exceed the purpose for which it was collected. You do not gather more than you need simply because it might be helpful. Clause 34 compounds these concerns. It does not just record facts, it makes local authorities active interrogators of family choices without clear statutory boundaries.

Not clear what might be compounded, Not clear what might be compounded, allowing data collected. It risks authorities who may be a geologically suspicious of home education to harass families, treating any non-cooperation as evidence of neglect, flipping the burden of proof entirely. That is why I strongly support amendment 206, to for children with home educational needs, and those under section 31 provision are already under a statutory framework, putting them into an additional register, not only duplicates bureaucracy, doesn't sound very efficient to me.

It risks destabilising finely balanced arrangements, often secured only after long struggle and hard evidence. The local authority already knows exactly what education the children are receiving, they do not need another compliance net. We must also not overlook children in flexible school arrangements, in the amendments spoken about just now, by Lord Frost. These children who remain on role, learning at home or elsewhere. It is not elevation, it is often the very means by which anxious neurodivergent or physically unwell children can stay partially connected to school, sometimes it is the only way exceptionally gifted children in sports and arts balance intensive training with education.

As drafted, clause 31 risks pulling these children into the not in school register, simply because they are not present five days a week, despite being under a formal or sanctioned plan. It is not only illogical, it actively endangers a valuable form of flexibility by burdening it with inappropriate regulation. Taken together, these clauses establish an assumption that any family outside of mainstream schooling must be indefinitely overseen by the state, subject to compulsory data disclosure, liable to escalating demands that ultimately lead to criminal sanction. Is it right that you imprison parents for doing this ultimately? This is not a like touch safeguard, it is an inversion of the principle that parents are primarily responsible for children's education.

With the state stepping in only when there is cause for concern. Under these proposals, the state steps in universally compelling all parents to prove their adequacy in bureaucratic their adequacy in bureaucratic terms, even outside of any risk. The danger is not in abstract, families have repeatedly told us their experience of local authorities, in some areas, officers understand and respect choices. In others, parents face officers who are fundamentally hostile to home education or who approach such families has problems. These closes if left unamended can have such officers powerful new tools for personal data, impose tight reporting deadlines, and pursue compliance for their own sake.

Does little to help children generally endanger and risks driving We are told this is necessary for safeguarding. Safeguarding depends on skilled, targeted, professional intervention where there are credible indicators of risk and fosters a relationship of trust so that families seek help. My fear is that by replacing anyone's with the bureaucratic model, we are increasing the likelihood of families to come forward when they need to. Precisely the opposite of what a safeguarding intensity. There what a safeguarding intensity.

There should be... These clauses are two broad. They should be reconsidered entirely preferably. We must sacrifice foundational principles of family privacy. I urge the government to listen to these concerns, not merely tweak the edges of the scheme but to rethink its entire balance. We need safeguarding that is smart and risk-led, not resumption of parental inadequacy. This is how we uphold both the welfare of children and help families.
14:50
Lord Nash Portrait Lord Nash (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to my amendment 279. I'd also like to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord Masten. I strongly support the government measures and I find myself in disagreement with a number of noble friends on these benches with whom I generally share common views. I thought the noble Lady the Minister put the situation exceptionally well in her opening remarks. I know that the home education... The number of children apparently being educated at home has grown exponentially in recent years, probably over the last 10-15 from 20 to 30,000 to 30,002 somewhere around 100 somewhere somewhere around 100 somewhere around 100,000.

My noble friend Lord Frost says that only one .4% of children home educated get a school attendance order -- 1.4%. Unsurprising as without a register, the local authorities will not know who these children are. And onto my noble friend point about the majority of home educators being university educated people, it may be the case in the case of suitably educated children, that may well be the case, but I believe there are many children who just do not have that benefit.

Of course, many children are educated at home exceptionally well and are being suitably educated by their parents or in other settings and I respect their right to do this. These are not the parents that concern me and nor should these parents be concerned about the provisions in this bill, or my amendment. Of their providing a suitable education: we should they be? Those of us who work in schools know that many children apparently being educated at home are not receiving a suitable education or indeed any education at all.

Many are active in gangs. We must be concerned about these children. Children have a right to be educated and I would invite the home education lobby just to reflect home education lobby just to reflect on whether their objections to this bill and no doubt to my amendment are just a little bit selfish and lacking in public spirit in some respects. As I understand, Lord Lucas was saying about the importance of children being seen. I assume therefore he supports going further than my amendment because the whole point is that too many children are unseen.

England is an outlier in relation to home education. The noble Lord Lord Packing talked about the low number of children being home educated. We have the highest proportion of children in home education and the lowest amount of regulation -- Lord Hacking. No other European country has a higher rate of home education. The next one is France which mandates yearly inspections. The European commission report on education concluded that children's progress is monitored everywhere in Europe except in the UK and the Netherlands.

I refer noble Lord to an excellent point -- report entitled " Out of sight and out of mind". That report made a number of recommendations, including that local authorities need powers to conduct visits and see the child in person at least every six months and also that home educated children should complete an annual, light- touch progress assessment in English and maths. My amendment goes nowhere near as far as this. The Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel has uncovered incidents of harm in children reported to be in home education, including a number of children who have died.

The panel concluded that such children were often invisible, were not in school and did not receive home visits. The 2021 report via 50 Education Data -- FFT Education Data found that children with mobility issues where at higher risk. It is estimated that many of these children are in home education. If a child is consistently absent... A permanently excluded child is more likely to be affected than a child that is not permanently excluded.

By the time the matter gets to court, the parents are layered up and even when they are not providing a suitable education, may well be pretending to be doing so by producing documentation that they have only recently been. My proposal would cut through this dance. Unless a child who is home educated is known to social services, how is a local authority to know whether they are receiving a suitable education? While Sara Sharif had previously While Sara Sharif had previously been under a CPP...

My noble friend pointed out about the scaremongering. We should be concerned about children who are home educated and who have suffered home educated and who have suffered In the category of being apparently educated at home but actually not receiving any education at all. Sadly, in the last decade or so, the world has moved on rapidly to this appalling state of affairs. My amendment is consistent with the recommendations made by the Education Select Committee in the report, " Strengthening home There should be a minimal annual assessment of a child's progress.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak in support of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak in support of the amendments in the name of Lord Masten. As this is the first time Masten. As this is the first time I've spoken in Committee, I like to make a couple of preliminary remarks. The first is to declare a
14:57
Lord Crisp Portrait Lord Crisp (Crossbench)
-
-
remarks. The first is to declare a personal in -- interest as I have a relative who is home educated. My second point is actually something that has caused me to want to investigate more and to thank people inside the site have provided me with information about the whole feel of home education and how it relates to local authorities. Are very grateful to the noble Lady the Minister for having a meeting with me early on in this process, and to the Baroness Barran and also Lord Storey for also having meetings with me to discuss these issues.

Are very much appreciated and I very much appreciate the fact that the noble Lady the Minister has offered to meet peers and I'm available in August. I would look forward to having further discussions and perhaps saving some time in the committee stages around some of the relatively minor details that could be cleared up in this bill. I don't want to take up too much time, but simply to make three or four points, and then speak to the particular amendments. The first one is that if noble Lords want to see a real approach to personalised education, then you can find that in some of the successful examples of home education, elective home education, perfectly in tune to the needs, capabilities and aspirations of the child.

This happens at all levels of achievement. However, equally, I'm concerned about the 39,000 missing children who have been mentioned who are at risk of abuse, may be running wild, or who are being brainwashed and separated from society in some form. There are a whole range of sets of issues that we must think about your. And characterising home education, I want to pick up a point that I don't think has been made by anyone, which is that many parents or some parents choose to home educate one of their children because of that child's particular needs, but actually have their other children in school, and indeed many parents as well will spend, will bring their children to home educate for a period and then bring them back into school later on when they perhaps have moved up or managed to develop in a way which allows them to take advantage of whatever provision there is locally.

Also, we must really recognise the poor state of some of our schools. Some of the stories I've heard of schools -- of people's described to me as in school excluded. These might be children who have had behavioural issues or need assistance and end up spending the time in the corridor with an assistant rather than being educated. There is a whole host of issues we need to tackle here. I am delighted to see the spirit in Your Lordships' House on this.

We must write practical rack we must find tactical ways forward -- we must find practical ways forward. We must frame a positive relationship between the home educated parents and local authorities. In some cases, this is excellent, and in other cases, this is very fraught The Noble Lord frost it seems to me to be very straightforward and flexibly registered with the school and they do not need to be double registered as the Noble Lord has said on this new register as well as their registration within the school, particularly operating under the Head Teacher of the school.

And, secondly, noble and learning front load westerns amendments which seek support in the House seems that local authorities should know what is happening to children in their area. And that deserves our support. We then turn to the Noble Lord gnashers amendment of education which I find more problematic and I think it is more problematic because hotel it achieve for the home educating parents to show you the materials they are using? Because those materials may be different depending on their philosophy of education, whether they are following a more traditional school and academic approach or whether they are following as they are entitled to a more child led approach.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment also sees the child's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment also sees the child's work, seeing the child's books is work, seeing the child's books is probably the best way of finding out whether children were properly taught. And it may be that taught. And it may be that homeschoolers, educating their children, if you look away and you see the materials are using to teach, one needs to know whether the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

teach, one needs to know whether the children are actually learning that and the only way to know that is to see their work. I do very much understand the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do very much understand the point that he is making, however, the issue is what happens to that the issue is what happens to that material once it is inspected and what does the home education officer, do they make a judgement on officer, do they make a judgement on that? Most of them are not teachers, in fact very few are. Do they go to in fact very few are. Do they go to an outside source, do they go to decide whether those materials are decide whether those materials are appropriate and at the moment we have a different situation at I understand it for 4724430 Education understand it for 4724430 Education Act 1996 provide the steps to be taken if it appears there is very little education in place or if the local authority has no information and what I understand happens is possibly that home educating parents provide an annual report to those in local authorities rather than providing materials that would be judged in isolation.

And I think as I understand it the best local authority home education officers is that they build relationships, they are happy with most of the people there, but they then can concentrate because there are problem areas within the home education school, so I think that imposing these new duties such as this and frustration to parents alike should concentrate on improving that relationship.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak in support of my Noble Friend Lord gnashers Noble Friend Lord gnashers amendment, 179, it is a very minor tweak because he is response for the tweak because he is response for the majority of parents yeah and I completely agree with that. However,
15:04
Lord Agnew of Oulton Portrait Lord Agnew of Oulton (Conservative)
-
-
completely agree with that. However, I see at close quarters in deprived communities that parents have limited education themselves and yet when they are withdrawn from schools there is nothing the school can do these children are thrown to the wolves and the numbers are escalating and Lord Nash talks about a trend over the last 10 to 15 years, but according to the NSPCC the number has increased by 86% in six years and 14 local authorities it is quadrupled in that time.

These are not all middle-class educated parents, but we have no idea if they are under 2021 home education and made a number of recommendations. Perhaps the most important one was to provide a clear set of criteria against which the suitability of education can be assessed, considering the full range of pedagogical approaches taking elective home education as well as the age aptitude, and ability of individual children or they may have SEND. The child safeguarding practice panel review panel, government-sponsored group, produced a number of recommendations on their education in its May 24 report and many of these mirrored what I have just mentioned.

The report refers to 27 referrals received between August 2020 and October 21, involving the deaths of six children and a further 35 suffering serious harm including physical neglect, physical abuse and sexual abuse. There are many other good recommendations, but as they do not fit the specific amendment I would recommend these two reports to any here interested in this. And my Noble Friend amendment provides a touch point. Owner five parents will not be negatively affected. The Noble Lord crisps concerns, the amendment is extremely light to, but it does move the situation in what is currently a complete blackhole to at least give us some indication of the children's well-being.

I want to finish with the case that many of you will know what to remind you a 10-year-old girl withdrawn from her primary school in April 2023 under the pretext of home education occurred after teachers noticed bruising which she had attempted to conceal. The school referred their concerns to social services but after being taken out of school she became invisible to safeguarding agencies. Neighbours reported hearing constant crying and screaming. She was murdered by her father. They were convicted in December of last year.

The lack of school oversight allowed this to happen. I respect the good work that educating parents do, but it is for cases like hers that I support amendment to 79.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I first of all want to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I first of all want to start by thanking the Government for taking this issue on, and actually being aware of problems that we face. And, secondly, also to recognise that Baroness Barran was
15:08
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
recognise that Baroness Barran was onto this as well. And I therefore want to go on to talk about home educators. I have met hundreds of home educators and probably they have contacted me. And many of those home educators do, most of those home educators do an amazing job. I think that you ought to know also that some of the home educators have contacted me by email and have been concerned about what has been going on and have given practical examples of that, so we get a balanced picture sometimes and I think if we really want to understand this issue and the point that the Noble Lord makes in his messages, Amendment 39,000 children are missing.

39 children, 39,000 children are missing. We have no idea where they are. And the Government want to tackle that head on. Could you imagine that society that says in that society if you want to remove your children from the education system, fine. Just do it. We will keep any records, we have no idea what you are doing, just get on with it. Could you imagine that? Could you imagine a situation where fundamental religious groups set up unregistered schools and we have no idea what is happening in those schools, except occasionally some of the teachers who have been working in that school report to the authorities the appalling behaviour by the stuff that goes on in those schools.

OFSTED, on many occasions, have tried to close those schools down. And what happens is they re- emerge as home education settings.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This figure, 31,000, I was a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This figure, 31,000, I was a trustee until they estimated that in 2023 there were 300,000 children 2023 there were 300,000 children where the statistics came for the where the statistics came for the data there is a gap of 300,000, and that is not accounting for home education.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

education. Thank you for that. There are, let's be clear about this, different let's be clear about this, different groups of home educators. And you cannot just use the blanket term cannot just use the blanket term home education. First of all, there are the traditional home educators are the traditional home educators that felt they did not want but that, let's be honest, the most important education in a child or children's lives are the parents, of course they are.

And some parents have the time, the opportunity, maybe the money, the desire, to maybe the money, the desire, to actually teach their children. And they do a fantastic job. And as I they do a fantastic job. And as I said earlier I met many of them, they go to camps, they celebrate together, et cetera et cetera. And they have been in the main probably of people that have got the resources and the time to do it. The second group are the ones that my Noble Friend mentioned and they are parents of children with special educational needs who feel that the education system is not working for their children.

And I think that we can understand that. Then there is 1/3 type that I think Lord Agnew, or was it Lord Nash? Sorry. And this mainly happened during COVID. Children mainly from poorer, disadvantaged backgrounds, return to school. They could not cope. And they went back to their parents and said I do not want to be in school. They enact their parents, their mum and their dad, and in the end they said OK, we will home educate you.

Had no experience of home education at all and sadly they did a major disservice to their children, because, of course, the children were not being home educated, they were just doing nothing at home and getting further and further behind in learning, and some of them, of course, went on to have gone on to criminal activities as well. And then, finally, of course, on the group that I mentioned before those in unregistered schools, if you knew some of the practices that went on in those schools you would be absolutely appalled.

The notion, in a fundamental logistics school, that you would take eight-year-old boys and spend all their time were they are just learning holy Scriptures, no proper education, it is just not acceptable at all. I understand some of the concerns by parents that they do not want to see bureaucratic procedures getting into where of the home education. I think that was a point that the Noble Lord rightly mentioned. And it is not beyond the role with committee and report stage to see if we can look very closely at what we require.

It is important that we know where children are. And, by the way, any system that would bring in has two work. We have been down this route before. My first headship one was called the teachers, you will remember this, the unique pupil number. Every pupil, every child, had a unique pupil number, which went on with them to whichever school they went to. And the school had a responsibility, a duty, to inform the next school if the child was moving to that school, et cetera.

And that, for some reason, has broken down. I do not understand why. The system we are going to adopt here has to work, not just between schools but it has to work between where children do not go to school, we have to know where those children are, we have to know where the children are so that we can keep them safe and ensure that they are This seems to be conflation between home education, children not missing are invisible.

It seems these measures are designed to try to find these invisible children. Is there not a risk, as I think you may be touching on, that we may bring in a system that doesn't Ashley find the missing children. People are very determined to appease the children of hide them, various people would not register the children even if the head database. You're going after all these people who are doing the job in the first few categories, but actually all the ones that we do want to get, those 39,000, however many, are they really going to necessarily self disclose? There's a real risk that we might not know this until we have imposed a huge amount of bureaucracy on all those doing a great job.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

At the moment, we're not doing anything. That is why the going missing and that is wiry don't know where they are. So we need to do something to ensure those children have an opportunity of education and have an opportunity of education and an opportunity to make sure they are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

safe. We are on the Select Committee for social mobility and part of the for social mobility and part of the evidence gathering we went to Blackpool. There we met with the Blackpool. There we met with the Department of Work and Pensions who do indeed have database on many children that are being homeschooled because they are in receipt of benefits. Indeed a lot of the parents that have been mentioned parents that have been mentioned here who are particularly well suited to home education, also claim suited to home education, also claim benefits so what I would say is if benefits so what I would say is if the government departments, the Department of education, DWP could communicate with one another, you could get to these people via the benefits system.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

benefits system. Thanks for that, I'm sure he's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thanks for that, I'm sure he's listening. Again I say I hope between committee and report stage, between committee and report stage, we can be sure that what we legislate for will be workable, clear and perhaps as least bureaucratic as it possibly can be. I also wanted to finally deal with the point that Lord Frost at the beginning made about Flex learning. -- Flex e-learning. I have some experience about that. I hope people experience about that.

I hope people who were school phobic. -- I had a people who was school phobic. His mom was a nurse and did not have the opportunity to home educate so we home educated for her. Gradually through that hypervisor flexi learning we were able to bring that buyback into the school. The most important thing will be weakened ensure we nowhere every child is, every child is learning and every child is safe.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would also like to thank the noble Baroness the Minister for her noble Baroness the Minister for her remarks on the clarity she brought with her earlier intervention, setting out the objectives of the government and her commitment on behalf of colleagues in the department to work with peers across department to work with peers across the House. It looks like it's going the House. It looks like it's going to be August, to explore the concerns and were possible to
15:19
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
concerns and were possible to address them. I would also like to thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for the constructive tone of his opening remarks also. The principle of having registered for children not in school has long held cross-party support. And as the noble Lord Lord Storey described, there are very different groups of children who are educated at home. And I think what the debate has started to explore this afternoon is that in our eagerness to safeguard vulnerable children, which we must try and do and do well, and to support those children who have struggled in mainstream school, we must also make every effort not to stigmatise or treat with suspicion parents who make a positive choice to home educate their children.

This group, and many of the other groups which follow, highlight the complexity of creating a homeschooling register and that multiplicity of details that need to be considered and I note that amendments to 2, C, 2 to 7, 27, A, 286 and clause 31 are all probing amendments and I look forward to the noble Minister's, noble Baroness the Minister's traffic Asian is. I did think, unsurprisingly, my noble friend Lord Frost made some very valid points in relation to the risk of duplication relation to the risk of duplication in relation to children who are school.

There are two individual amendments which we support, they amendments which we support, they are Amendment 226 and 279.. With regard to children missing education, I think most people would be surprised if it was not already a duty to inform the court if procedures relating to the welfare of the child were underway and that a child is not in school. It seems to me highly relevant information for the court to take into consideration since of course there's a lot more risk attached to a child who is classified as missing education as opposed to a child who is selectively home educated.

I'm not sure about the practicality of consistent arrangements to address both persistent and -- non- attendance or a regular attendance but I absolutely support the spirit of his amendment that the family courts should be made aware of the child's situation and the risk that accompany it. Amendment 279 in the accompany it. Amendment 279 in the name of my noble friend Lord Nash android acne raised the important point of what local authority can do if they have concerns that a child is not receiving a suitable education or indeed any real education at all.

And I hope this is something that the government has thought about and has a plan for. There's a great deal of detail in section 436, C, of the bill. But nothing about the actual education child receives, just the time spent and with whom. Amendment 233, A, in the name of noble Lord Lord Hacking, and I remember the meeting with a group of home educators, in fact I looked below bar and there they are. In the same place as last time. It is like Groundhog Day.

So this would remove section 436, C, which defines in detail the content and process for maintaining the proposed Children Not in School (National Register and Support) list, and while I agree with the noble Lord that the drafting seems unnecessarily detailed or intrusive, it is important to have clarity about what will be recorded and how it will be kept up-to-date. I also can't support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas that clause 31 should not stand part of the bill.

Although I appreciate that this was designed to give the House a chance to explore the principal the government prepares to follow and as we have heard. My noble friend from remember that in the 2022 Schools Bill we were very that register for children who are not in school was necessary, I think the current government has improved an aboriginal proposal in one way this increased focus on safeguarding and clause 30 although as I said, I do regret the extent of detail that is required in the bill as drafted.

And of course we will probe in subsequent groups the balance between the clear right of parents to educate their children at home and the right of a child to receive a suitable education, but the principal of a local authority register for Children Not in School has very broad support. My understanding is the remaining amendments in this group are also more probing amendments and therefore I look forward to the Minister's reply.
15:25
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
This group, as we have heard, relates to the purpose and scope of Children Not in School registers and because it has rightly, as the first group in the consideration of these clauses, raised some broad issues of principle as well, I will speak for slightly longer than I would, I hope, in subsequent groups, in order to be able to put some of the important intervals on the record and also to, I hope, begin to allay some of the concerns that have been expressed.

I want to thank noble Lord Lord Lucas for the important points that he has raised and I want to address the principal points, before turning to other noble Lords amendments in this grouping. During today's debate we will hear much about parents rights and so I again want to be clear up front that parents already do, and will continue to have a right to home educate their children in line with their preferences, values, or religious beliefs. On some of the specific points that the noble Lord raised.

I think we will give further consideration in clause 36 to nature of the places in which children are being educated and whether or not they should be further inspected and regulated. He is right that what we are attending to do here is to make sure that we know where children are. That they are seen, not to prevent them from being educated elsewhere from in schools, or necessarily even seeing that, or not could necessarily seeing that as a risk.

And I think it's really important that we don't, and some noble Lords have suggested, view this register as being a statement that there is something illegitimate in the choices that have been made by many parents to educate their children. It is about ensuring that every child, however, is seen. It's also important that we don't lose sight of parents responsibilities and children's rights. And I think both noble Lord Lord Addington and the noble Lord Lord Nash made this point very well.

Parental rights are not absolute. They must be able to evidence to local authorities that education is suitable. This is the existing position and that Bill does not change it. Children Not in School registers will help ensure that children's rights to a safe, suitable education is protected it's the government and Bush and that no child for through the gaps in this respect. The information we are asking parents to provide for these registers is underpinned by that very singular goal and to be absolutely clear, the registers are not intended to drive a wedge between local authorities and parents.

I agree with noble Lord Lord Lucas and other noble Lords that positive engagement between parents and local authorities is
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page